Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts – May 29, 2012
Facts: Safety
Insurance Company denied coverage under the plaintiff’s homeowner’s insurance
policy for damage to her house. Mrs. Boazova claimed that the damage to her
property was covered under her homeowner’s insurance policy’s “hidden seepage”
provision. Safety Insurance did not dispute that the damage to the home was caused
by hidden seepage, however, they moved for summary judgment on the argument
that the policies exclusions barred the plaintiff from recovery on the claim.
The relevant section of the insurance policy states that Safety Insurance does
not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by, among other things,
surface water. Additionally, the policy included an anticoncurrent cause
provision, which entirely bars insurance coverage where a claimed loss is
caused by a combination of covered and excluded perils. The courts have upheld
the inclusion of such language in an insurance policy.
Issue: Whether
summary judgment was appropriate considering the plaintiff’s understanding of
the policy was that it should cover “hidden seepage.”
Yes. Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. The proper interpretation of an insurance policy is a matter
of law to be decided by a court, not a jury. The court recognizes that when
construing insurance policy language, it is appropriate to consider what an
objectively reasonable insured person, reading the relevant policy language,
would expect to be covered. However, an insured cannot prevail simply by
claiming an expectation of coverage, because most insured typically expect that
all of their losses will be covered. Boazova satisfied her burden of proving
that the claimed loss fell within the coverage of her homeowner’s insurance
policy. Safety then satisfied its burden of showing that the exclusion for
damage was applicable to the plaintiff’s claim. Furthermore, in light of the
anticoncurrent cause provision, where the excluded peril (in this case, the
“surface water”) was a direct or indirect cause of damage to the home, Safety
was not obligated to provide insurance coverage “regardless of any other cause
or even contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” (JT)
