 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Tinker3/16/2005
decide only whether Tinker's "expectation of coverage reasonable under these circumstances." The jury answered in the affirmative, and the court entered judgment for Tinker. This appeal followed.
6. We construe a provision of an insurance contract according to its terms to determine the parties' intent. See Hous. Vt. v. Goldsmith & Morris, 165 Vt. 428, 430, 685 A.2d 1086, 1088 (1996) (interpreting basic contractual provisions as a matter of law). If we find the terms ambiguous, we may admit direct evidence of the parties' intentions at the time of formation. We do not find the exclusionary language at issue in this case ambiguous, however, and therefore we review the language of the contract de novo "from the perspective of what a reasonably prudent person applying for insurance would have understood it to mean." Towns v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., 169 Vt. 545, 546, 726 A.2d 65, 67 (1999) (mem.). Judgment as a matter of law is proper when " 'there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for [the nonmoving] party.' " Gero v. J.W.J. Realty, 171 Vt. 57, 59, 757 A.2d 475, 476 (2000) (quoting V.R.C.P. 50(a)(1)). Given Tinker's deposition testimony, which the trial court had available to it when deciding Maine Mutual's pre-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, we cannot agree that sufficient evidence existed to submit this case to a jury.
7. In that deposition, Tinker engaged in the following colloquy:
Q: Did you do anything on or about the [disputed property] other than in the course of your professional survey services that you were rendering to Mr. Kenney?
A: Could you repeat that?
Q: Sure. The survey work that you were doing here was as part of your rendering professional survey services to Mr. Kenney, correct?
A: Yes, correct.
Q: Did you do anything to [the property] other than in the course of the services you were providing to Mr. Kenney?
A: No, not that I'm aware of.
Tinker's answers make it clear that the damages at issue in this case arose from his actions as a professional surveyor. The Maine Mutual policy plainly excludes coverage for damages that results from "rendering or fail to render any professional service," and therefore Tinker could not reasonably have expected coverage under these circumstances.
8. Tinker argues, however, that he expected the policy to cover him for damages he might inflict on a third party, and that he understood the exclusion as precluding only coverage for damages he might cause to his paying clients. He further contends that our interpretation of the exclusionary language "would negate all coverage under a business liability policy when the insured business consisted solely of the rendering of professional services." Tinker's understanding is not a reasonable one, however, because the exclusionary language draws no distinction between damages caused to paying clients and those done to third parties. Rather, the policy clearly distinguishes between damages that arise from the rendering of professional services, and those arising from other occurrences. Contrary to Tinker's contentions, this language does not exclude coverage for any and all damages he or his employees might cause-for example, it would presumably cover damages arising from a slip and fall on business property-but it does not cover damages that result from his professional judgments and actions as a surveyor.
9. Tinker further relies on our decision in Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Woods to suggest that we should give great weight to his coverage expectations and strictly construe the exclusion in his favor. 200
Page 1 2 3 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|