146 F. Supp. 3d 364
D. Mass.2015Background
- Kaplans were sued in 2013 by neighbors Costello in state court for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations arising from a dispute over the Kaplans' yard.
- Narragansett Bay Insurance issued the Kaplans a homeowners policy with standard liability coverage and a Mariner Plus endorsement; Narragansett has been providing defense under a reservation of rights.
- Policy period began November 8, 2012; Narragansett contends it has no duty to defend suits arising from events after that date if coverage does not apply.
- Mariner Plus covers personal injury for enumerated intentional torts, but excludes coverage where injuries are caused by or arise from the insured's wrongful acts; standard coverage covers accidental bodily injury or property damage.
- The underlying Costello claims involve intentional conduct (abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil rights act interference) not arising from an accidental occurrence and are not bodily injury or property damage, thus not within standard coverage or Mariner Plus.
- The court granted Narragansett summary judgment on duty to defend; as a matter of ripeness, it declined to rule on duty to indemnify; Kaplans asserted estoppel, 93A, and breach counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to defend given underlying claims | Narragansett: only covers accidents; underlying claims are intentional and outside coverage. | Kaplans: there may be coverage under broad interpretation and the reservation of rights preserves defense. | No duty to defend |
| Indemnification scope ripe for declaratory judgment | Indemnity duties depend on facts resolved at trial; no ripe issue since no liability adjudicated. | Kaplans seek declaration of broader indemnity rights based on coverage. | Indemnity not ripe; no duty declared |
| Estoppel against Narragansett | Reservation of rights negates estoppel; Haverty promise does not bind due to inconsistent statements. | Kaplans relied on insurer's representations and seek estoppel to force continued defense. | Estoppel not established; grant summary judgment for Narragansett |
| Mass. Chapter 93A claim viability | Reservation of rights and declaratory action are standard; 93A claims require egregious unfair practice. | Kaplans allege unfair acts by insurer in handling defense. | 93A claim dismissed |
| Breach of contract and good faith claims premature | Declaratory judgment sought; no anticipatory breach under Massachusetts law since defense ongoing. | Kaplans seek breach declarations and damages for perceived delays. | Breach claims premature; no breach found |
Key Cases Cited
- Billings v. Commerce Ins. Co., 458 Mass. 194 (Mass. 2010) (insurer has duty to defend if allegations reasonably suggest coverage)
- Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 387 (Mass. 2003) (duty to defend depends on allegations and policy scope)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 336 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2003) (look beyond pleadings to underlying allegations for coverage)
- Manganella v. Evanston Ins. Co., 746 F.Supp.2d 338 (D. Mass. 2010) (burden-shifting framework for coverage when one claim falls inside policy)
- New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 40 Mass.App.Ct. 722 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (determinative approach to identity of coverage source)
- Sterilite Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 458 N.E.2d 338 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (indemnity/defense related distinctions in coverage analysis)