In the case of two plaintiffs involved in a motor vehicle collision who are claiming diminished value damages, the defendant’s 2016 Massachusetts standard auto insurance policy specifically excludes the IDV damages sought by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed.
“Plaintiffs Philip Chapman Seaver and Jeffrey Frank Coverley (“Plaintiffs”) were involved in a motor vehicle collision with an insured of Defendant Commerce Insurance Company (“Commerce”), and Commerce Insurance Company (“Commerce”) paid for the repair of their vehicle. Received from. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, then commenced this action against Commerce, alleging that their vehicles were covered under insurance policies issued by Commerce to the insureds. It argued that because it was “current,” it was liable to pay impairment of value added (“IDV”) damages. On the resale market, it will be worth less than a comparable vehicle that has not sustained collision damage. ”…
“…the collisions between Plaintiff’s motor vehicle and Commerce’s insured occurred in 2018 and 2019. At the time, the insured had a 2016 standard Massachusetts auto insurance policy issued by Commerce (“2016 Policy”). was insured under the . …
“…the Department seeks to dismiss on the basis that the 2016 policy expressly excludes the IDV damages plaintiffs are seeking. The Court agrees for the following reasons:…
“in McGilloway [v. Safety Ins. Co., 488 Mass 610 (2021)], the Supreme Court of Justice took up a similar third-party claim for motor vehicle IDV damages. In reaching its decision, the court noted that the insurance contract term “property damage” could include “intangible damage, such as a diminution in the value of tangible property,” and that the insurance contract language in that case would be It was held that the law was derived from the Massachusetts Standard Automobile Insurance Act of 2007. This policy did not preclude the plaintiff in this case from seeking compensation for her IDV damages. …
“In contrast, the 2016 policy governing coverage here is expressly and unambiguously to: 1) limit payments to damage or destruction of the claimant’s “tangible property”; 2) Recovery of “intangible losses alleged to result from damage to property, unless otherwise required by law” is excluded.The 2008 policy at issue in McGilloway It contained no such limitations or exclusions. 488 Mass. at 612. Therefore, the results reached in that case are inappropriate here. …
“…the 2016 policy’s exclusion limits Plaintiffs’ recovery to repair damages already incurred. Therefore, their breach of contract claim fails…
“The language of GLc 90, §34O, which Plaintiffs cite in support of their claims, does not contradict this.
“Finally, the Department of Commerce’s failure to pay plaintiffs IDV damages is neither an unfair or deceptive act or practice under GLc 93A nor an unreasonable claim or settlement practice under GLc 176D. Under the circumstances. , Commerce was not obligated to pay IDV damages and, therefore, did not act in bad faith or otherwise improperly in refusing to do so. Like any argument, it fails.”
Seaver et al. v. Commerce Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-117-23) (6 pages) (Kazanjian, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Case No. 1984CV02741-BLS-1) (September 21, 2023).
Click here to read the full opinion.
