Topic: Massachusetts Developments

In Santacroce v. Sametz, a plaintiff brought suit against both the alleged tortfeasor for negligence, and the tortfeasor’s insurer for bad faith in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 176D and 93A. The insurer, as is often the case, moved to sever and stay the Chapter 176D and 93A claims. This motion was denied by the trial judge, who noted that “privileges [work product and attorney client] can be protected by less drastic methods than severance and staying these claims.”

On October 28, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a coverage action it had brought against its insured on a professional liability policy, an insurance broker who specialized in the placement of professional liability coverage for professionals including real estate agents and brokers.

Insurers can take comfort that their decision to bring a rescission action against a Massachusetts insured will not itself effect a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, at least in cases where the carrier’s process for deciding whether to sue is not relevant to the rescission claim itself. The federal district court in Massachusetts recently considered that precise question in Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v. Lodigiani, No. 13-cv-30138-MGM (D.Mass. Aug. 12, 2014).

The federal district court in Massachusetts recently declared that a general liability policyholder’s construction of a policy exclusion was irrational, with the result that the carrier owed no coverage for an underlying personal injury suit. In the course of its discussion, the court also highlighted First Circuit precedent for the proposition that the construction of an insurance policy should comport with “common sense.”