Only Insureds Entitled to Defense

Posted 2022-12-06 13:44:47

278

Representative of Five Dead Seek to Hold Owner of Vehicle’s Insurer Responsible for Deaths and Injuries

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/giAecBSJ and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvBZej3W and at https://lnkd.in/gZ75nu_8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.

In Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company v. Roger Hartwell; Lynnway Auto Auction, Inc., Safety Insurance Company; et. al. Nos. 21-1603, 21-1636, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (November 23, 2022) the plaintiff claimed it owed neither defense nor indemnity.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Representative of Five Dead Seek to Hold Owner of Vehicle’s Insurer Responsible for Deaths and Injuries

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/giAecBSJ and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvBZej3W and at https://lnkd.in/gZ75nu_8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.

The dispute arose from an auction at which a motor vehicle being displayed for bidding suddenly accelerated into a group of attendees, killing five and injuring many others.

Motorists provided a liability policy (the “Primary Policy”) that covered AutoFair, Nashua, and other AutoFair-affiliated dealerships as named insureds, but did not name Lynnway or Hartwell among the insureds.

ANALYSIS

It is axiomatic that interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law.

The language at issue plainly aims at making sure that coverage does not extend in general to persons or entities working in any business of selling autos, while at the same time carving out an exception.

No reasonable insured that procured the policy would have any interest in paying for a policy that provided coverage for another person who works for another unrelated seller of autos.

Given that the underlying Primary Policy does not cover the claimed liabilities neither does the Umbrella Policy and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

The five deaths and multiple injuries prompted a search for every possible insurance coverage to allow the availability to the victims of sufficient funds to indemnify the victims of the runaway Jeep. The attempt was understandable. The arguments were not. The First Circuit read the entire policy, applied the facts of the accident and the relationships of the persons involved and necessarily found that the Motorists policies provided no coverage for the auctioneer and the driver of the Jeep. The analysis was clear, logical and applied the clear and unambiguous meaning of the policy and its exclusion.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.

Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd

Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]

Go to http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/zalma; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.

Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd

Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]

Please log in to like, share and comment!