Lawyers Weekly recently interviewed Higgins Cavanagh & Cooney partner Paul S. Callaghan about a decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court that interpreted the term “automobile exclusion” under Rhode Island law. Paul is a recognized authority on insurance coverage issues.
The incident concerned the owner of a 2009 Nissan Altima who was involved in an automobile accident in Fall River, Mass. while operating his employer’s Dodge tow truck on business.
The plaintiff, a passenger in another vehicle that was part of the same accident, brought suit in Bristol County Superior Court against the driver of the tow truck. That action arose once the insurance on the towing company’s truck failed to cover her medical bills.
The personal lines policy on the defendant’s Nissan Altima specifically excluded coverage for bodily injuries “arising out of an accident involving any vehicle while being maintained or used by a person employed or engaged in any auto business.” The policy also defined “auto business” as “delivering” vehicles.
Even so, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and ruling that the personal insurance on the Nissan Altima covered the plaintiff’s injuries.
Paul Callaghan told Lawyers Weekly that the Massachusetts Appeals Court correctly applied Rhode Island law in denying coverage.
“It’s a fairly standard concept that you don’t get insurance for business activities from your personal lines, he said, adding “unless there is an ambiguity in the language, the state’s courts tend to apply business exclusions literally.”
Paul Callaghan did add that if the court were ever inclined to rule against the insurance company in this particular case, it would have done so by finding a difference in the terms “delivering” and “towing.”
