Safety Insurance v. Gonzalez

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Safety Insurance v. Gonzalez

519 N.E.2d 266, 401 Mass. 1011, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 46

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 16, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 519 N.E.2d 266 (Safety Insurance v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Safety Insurance v. Gonzalez, 519 N.E.2d 266, 401 Mass. 1011, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 46 (Mass. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The insurer brought this action seeking a declaration that its underinsurance obligation to Gonzalez was limited to $10,000, the limit stated on the coverage selections page of the policy for underinsured motorist coverage. A judge of the Superior Court, noting six other Superior Court decisions which split on this issue four to two in favor of insureds, ruled that Gonzalez was entitled to $20,000 in underinsurance coverage. We allowed the defendant insurer’s application for direct appellate review of a judgment, entered on cross motions for summary judgment, declaring that Gonzalez had $20,000 of underinsured coverage available to her. For reasons stated in LeCuyer v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., ante 709, 710-712 (1988), we reverse the judgment and order that a judgment be entered declaring that Gonzalez had only $ 10,000 of underinsured motorist coverage available to her under her husband’s motor vehicle policy. See Moore v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., ante 1010 (1988).

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The insurer brought this action seeking a declaration that its underinsurance obligation to Gonzalez was limited to $10,000, the limit stated on the coverage selections page of the policy for underinsured motorist coverage. A judge of the Superior Court, noting six other Superior Court decisions which split on this issue four to two in favor of insureds, ruled that Gonzalez was entitled to $20,000 in underinsurance coverage. We allowed the defendant insurer’s application for direct appellate review of a judgment, entered on cross motions for summary judgment, declaring that Gonzalez had $20,000 of underinsured coverage available to her. For reasons stated in LeCuyer v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., ante 709, 710-712 (1988), we reverse the judgment and order that a judgment be entered declaring that Gonzalez had only $ 10,000 of underinsured motorist coverage available to her under her husband’s motor vehicle policy. See Moore v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., ante 1010 (1988).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 N.E.2d 266, 401 Mass. 1011, 1988 Mass. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safety-insurance-v-gonzalez-mass-1988.