Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Morrison
460 Mass. 352
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Policy excludes bodily injury caused by insured's acts that are intentional and criminal.
- Morrison pleaded guilty to assault and battery on a public employee and resisting arrest; these are general-intent crimes related to the incident.
- Underlying tort action for injuries to Officer Langelier and spouse resulted in a default judgment after Morrison did not answer.
- Metropolitan failed to defend Morrison in the personal injury action and sought a declaratory judgment asserting no duty to indemnify/defend.
- Judge ruled the exclusion barred coverage but did not decide whether Metropolitan breached the duty to defend; the case was remanded.
- Court clarifies that if breach occurred, insurer is bound by the underlying negligence allegations and default judgment may inform indemnification unless other exclusions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the exclusion apply when the insured intended the conduct and it was criminal? | Morrison argues exclusion precludes coverage. | Metropolitan argues acts were intentional and criminal, triggering exclusion. | Yes, the exclusion applies to intentional and criminal acts. |
| Does a guilty plea negate the insurer's duty to defend? | Guilty plea shows intent/criminality and supports no defense duty. | Guilty plea is not preclusive; not conclusive on coverage. | Guilty plea does not negate duty to defend; evidence of intent/criminality but not dispositive. |
| If insurer breaches the duty to defend, what happens when a default judgment is entered? | Breach binds insurer to underlying findings for indemnity. | Breach does not automatically fix indemnity; exclusions may apply. | Breaches bind insurer to the underlying negligence findings for indemnification, subject to exclusions. |
| Can the insurer rely on collateral estoppel or issue preclusion given a default? | Default establishes negligence; estoppel may bind. | Plea-based conviction not preclusive; collateral estoppel limited. | Conviction via guilty plea not preclusive; not collateral estoppel unless breach of defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Billings v. Commerce Ins. Co., 458 Mass. 194 (Mass. 2010) (duty to defend based on allegations, with exceptions for undisputed facts)
- A.W. Chesterton Co. v. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, 445 Mass. 502 (Mass. 2005) (duty to defend broader than indemnify; interpretation rules for exclusions)
- Ruggerio Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 430 Mass. 794 (Mass. 2000) (duty to defend determined from complaint allegations and insurer knowledge)
- Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 406 Mass. 7 (Mass. 1989) (duty to defend based on reasonably susceptible allegations in complaint)
- Desrosiers v. Royal Ins. Co., 393 Mass. 37 (Mass. 1984) (statutory interpretation guiding insurance coverage disputes)