Case Title: Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Tinker

Citation: 178 Vt. 522, 2005 VT 35, 872 A.2d 360

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Tinker (2003-562); 178 Vt. 522;
872 A.2d 360

2005 VT 35

[Filed 16-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 35

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-562

                            OCTOBER TERM, 2004

  Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Company  }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Rutland Superior Court
                                       }	
  Robert Tinker and John Charles Fedor }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 530-0-01

                                                Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

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

       ¶  1.  Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeals from a superior
  court order concluding that it has an affirmative duty to provide counsel
  and liability coverage to Robert Tinker in a suit arising from his actions
  as a professional surveyor.  Maine Mutual contends that the court erred in
  refusing to decide the coverage issues as a matter of law, and,
  alternatively, in failing to submit several issues to the jury.  We
  conclude that, as a matter of law, the business liability policy excludes
  coverage for damages arising from Tinker's professional services, and
  therefore we reverse the superior court's order denying judgment as a
  matter of law in favor of Maine Mutual.  Given this disposition, we do not
  reach the questions regarding the issues submitted to the jury.

       ¶  2.  In late 1999, Wayne and Timothy Kenney retained Tinker to
  survey a boundary line on property they were considering buying from
  Laurence and Barbara Schuvert.  The Kenneys were particularly interested in
  resolving the ownership of a 19.9 acre parcel that the Schuverts' neighbor,
  John Fedor, claimed title to through adverse possession.  Tinker concluded
  that the parcel in fact belonged to the Schuverts, and he then went on to
  the property and cut trees and altered the existing boundary markers.  In
  April of 2001, Fedor filed suit against Tinker, the Kenneys, and others
  alleging that Tinker's actions damaged Fedor's property and called his
  title into question.
   
       ¶  3.  Tinker asked Maine Mutual to defend and indemnify him
  pursuant to a business owner's liability policy he purchased from an agent
  in Vermont.   Maine Mutual provided an initial defense, but immediately
  sought a declaratory judgment absolving it of the duty to defend and
  indemnify.  Tinker sought a jury trial on the issue, and the superior court
  set a trial date in September  2003.  On the morning of trial, Maine Mutual
  moved the court for judgment as a matter of law based on a clause in
  Tinker's policy excluding coverage for " '[b]odily injury,'' property
  damage,''personal injury' or 'advertising injury' due to rendering or
  fail[ing] to render any professional service."  (Emphasis added).  In
  support of its motion, Maine Mutual presented Tinker's deposition
  testimony, in which he conceded that he undertook all of his actions on the
  disputed property in the course of rendering professional services. 
  Nonetheless, the court rejected Maine Mutual's arguments and submitted the
  case to the jury for a determination of the parties' reasonable coverage
  expectations at the time the parties entered into the insurance contract.

       ¶  4.  At trial, Tinker testified that he had previously
  held a malpractice insurance policy, but had stopped renewing it on the
  belief that he was largely judgment proof because he and his wife jointly
  own the major business assets.  Tinker explained, however, that he then
  purchased the Maine Mutual policy on the understanding that it would cover
  him for damages he might unintentionally inflict on third parties.  He
  expressed the belief that, while his malpractice insurance had protected
  him in the event of a dispute with a paying client, his current business
  liability policy covered suits such as that brought by Fedor. 

       ¶  5.  At the close of evidence, the court indicated that it
  would submit only the question of the parties' reasonable coverage
  expectations to the jury.  Maine Mutual then moved the court to present
  several additional questions to the jury, including whether Tinker's
  actions were an "occurrence" within the policy definition, and whether
  Tinker intentionally damaged the property, thereby precluding coverage. 
  The court found that Maine Mutual had not presented evidence on these
  additional issues, and asked the jury to decide only whether Tinker's
  "expectation of coverage [was] 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,