Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; April 2, 2012; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
In a case concerning underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits following an automobile accident, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Commerce Insurance Company, determining the benefits owed to the Blackburns. On May 9, 2008, Steven D. Blackburn and Angelica M. Blackburn were in an accident with Helen Vieira, whose insurance covered $50,000 per person, which was paid to the Blackburns but was insufficient to cover their total medical expenses and lost wages, amounting to over $241,000 for Angelica and over $80,000 for Steven. The Blackburns sought additional UIM coverage from Commerce’s policy, which provided $100,000 per person. While the Blackburns argued they were entitled to the full $100,000 each, Commerce contended that they should only receive $50,000 each, the amount already paid by Vieira’s insurer. The court's ruling favored Commerce, affirming that UIM policy interpretation follows standard contract principles, and the specific language of the Massachusetts insurance policy allows for a reduction in recoverable damages based on amounts received from other insurance. The policy's provisions must be interpreted in a manner that gives reasonable effect to all terms and aligns with the intent of the parties.
If only one person is injured, the insurer will cover unpaid damages up to the difference between the total collected from the responsible party’s bodily injury liability insurance and the per person limit specified in the policy. For multiple injuries, the insurer's payment is similarly capped at the difference between the total liability coverage per accident and the policy's per accident limit. The Blackburns contend they are entitled to $200,000 in UIM benefits, arguing that the insurer's responsibility is the difference between the per accident limits of their policy and Vieira's coverage. Conversely, Commerce asserts that the phrase “subject to the per person limit” in the relevant paragraph aligns the calculation of UIM benefits for multiple injuries with that of a single injury, thus limiting each Blackburn’s benefit to $50,000, after factoring in the amounts received from Vieira’s insurer. Under G. L. c. 175, § 113L, which governs underinsured motorist benefits, the policy details dictate the coverage terms. The interpretation of the policy language, particularly the “subject to” clause, indicates no ambiguity and supports Commerce’s position that the UIM benefit calculation is consistent regardless of the number of injured parties, establishing a financial cap on claims.
A reasonable interpretation of contractual terms that maintains harmony among all provisions is preferred over one that leaves aspects unreasonable. The interpretation aligning with Commerce's position adheres to the fair meaning of policy language and is consistent with G. L. c. 175, § 113L. It is supported by case law that allows for deductions from underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits without violating statutory provisions. The policy language must be read as a whole within the context of Massachusetts's insurance framework. The court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Commerce, noting that the Blackburns’ automobile was insured under a standard Massachusetts policy. Commerce acknowledged it owed at least $50,000 in UIM benefits to the Blackburns, which it paid before litigation. The dispute over the $200,000 difference between the policy limits of Travelers and Commerce falls under the stipulated conditions for payment in cases of multiple injuries. Any claim for enhanced UIM protection is a regulatory matter for the Commissioner of Insurance. The Blackburns’ appeal, though challenging, was not considered frivolous, leading to the denial of Commerce's request for appellate attorney’s fees and costs.
