Case Title: Northern Security Insurance Co. v. Rossitto

Citation: 171 Vt. 580, 762 A.2d 861

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Northern Security Insurance Co. v. Rossitto (99-188); 171 Vt. 580; 762 A.2d 861 

[Filed 18-Oct-2000]

 
                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-188

                               JUNE TERM, 2000

Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc.    }    APPEALED FROM:
                                             }
                                             }
     v.	                                     }   Washington Superior Court
                                             }	
                                             }
Mary L., Joseph and Anthony Rossitto	     }    DOCKET NO. 664-11-97 Wncv

                                                  Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendants, the Rossittos, appeal from the grant of summary judgment
  by the Washington  Superior Court in favor of Plaintiff Northern Security
  Insurance Company.  Northern Security instituted a  declaratory judgment
  action seeking a determination that they did not owe homeowner's liability
  insurance  coverage to defendants for an accident involving all terrain
  vehicles (ATVs) that occurred on or near  defendants' property.  Defendants
  claim that the trial court erred by (1) deciding a disputed issue of 
  material fact regarding where the accident occurred in reaching summary
  judgment, (2) finding the  insurance contract unambiguous, and (3) failing
  to address their affirmative defenses.  We reverse and  remand.

       The undisputed facts are as follows: In June 1974, Paul and Mary
  Rossitto, residents of New  York, purchased a camp at Neal's Pond in
  Lunenberg, Vermont.  They accessed this camp by a deeded  right-of-way. 
  Mr. Rossitto purchased a Northern Security homeowner's insurance policy on
  the  Lunenberg property with Poulos Insurance of St. Johnsbury.  Mr.
  Rossitto died in 1989, and Mrs. Rossitto  became the sole owner of the
  Vermont property.  On September 3, 1994, Mrs. Rossitto's sons, Joseph and 
  Anthony, had an accident while the two were riding their ATVs.  Apparently,
  Joseph struck Anthony,  injuring Anthony's leg and requiring his
  hospitalization.

       The parties dispute, however, the exact location of the accident.  The
  Rossittos contend that the  accident occurred on their property because the
  accident occurred on their right-of-way; Northern Security  contends that
  the right-of-way is not "property" within the meaning of the policy or, in
  the alternative, that  the accident occurred completely off the Rossittos'
  right-of-way.

 

       Anthony filed a personal injury lawsuit against his mother and Joseph
  in Queens County, New  York, on August 8, 1995.  This underlying action has
  yet to be decided.  Northern Security, a Vermont  corporation, first
  received notice of the accident on September 13, 1995.  Mrs. Rossitto and
  Joseph signed  a non-waiver agreement at their New York home on September
  24, 1995, to allow Northern Security to  investigate the claim while
  simultaneously defending them in the New York action.

       On November 10, 1997, Northern Security requested that Washington
  County Superior Court  declare that its liability policy with the Rossittos
  did not cover the accident, joining Anthony as a  defendant in the action. 
  Both parties moved for summary judgment.  On March 22, 1999, the court 
  granted Northern Security's motion on the ground that the ATV at the time
  of the accident was excluded  from personal injury liability coverage. 
  This appeal followed.

                                     I.

       In its decision, the trial court assumed there were no disputed issues
  of material fact.  This was  error because there exists a dispute with
  regard to where the accident actually occurred.  Defendants assert  that
  the accident occurred on their right-of-way.  Northern Security contends
  that the accident occurred  completely off defendants' property, including
  the right-of-way.  Furthermore, Northern Security asserts  that defendants
  attempted to create a "sham issue" to oppose its motion for summary
  judgment by  presenting an affidavit that conflicted with an earlier
  deposition.

       During his deposition, Anthony described the accident as occurring in
  an area that was not  accessible by automobiles.  Northern Security argues
  that the necessary implication is that the accident  did not happen on the
  right-of-way, which is accessible by automobiles.  In contrast, Anthony's
  affidavit  states that the accident did occur on the right-of-way. 
  Northern Security's "sham issue" argument is not  determinative, however,
  because an affidavit may not be excluded solely on the ground that it
  conflicts  with a deposition.  See Pierce v. Riggs, 149 Vt. 136, 139,