Title: Towns v. VT Mutual Insurance Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Towns v. VT Mutual Insurance Co.  (98-259); 169 Vt. 545; 726 A.2d 25

[Filed 26-Jan-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-259

                             JANUARY TERM, 1999

Richard F. Towns                     }	APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.	                             }	Lamoille Superior Court
                                     }	
Vermont Mutual Insurance Company     }
                                     }	DOCKET NO. 127-6-97 LeCv	

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

       Plaintiff Richard Towns appeals from a grant of summary judgment in
  favor of defendant  Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, holding that
  defendant was not required to defend and  indemnify plaintiff under a
  homeowner's policy because plaintiff's liability for an unlawful landfill 
  arose from formerly owned property not included as an insured location
  under the instant policy.  We affirm.

       The parties do not dispute the facts.  Plaintiff owned property on
  Collins Hill in Johnson  from 1972 until he sold it on June 28, 1987. 
  Beginning June 29, 1987, plaintiff owned and  occupied a residence in
  Morrisville.  Plaintiff is a named insured under a homeowner's policy 
  issued by defendant that went into effect on the same date as his occupancy
  of the Morrisville  residence began, June 29, 1987, and that remained in
  effect through June 29, 1997.  The insured  location listed on the policy
  is plaintiff's residence in Morrisville. 

       On September 30, 1996, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued
  an administrative  order alleging that, during the time plaintiff owned the
  Johnson property, he illegally disposed of  fill there.  Plaintiff notified
  defendant of the State's proceeding against him and demanded that defendant 
  defend him pursuant to the policy.  Defendant denied coverage.(FN1) 
  In June 1997,  plaintiff sued defendant for failure to defend and
  indemnify plaintiff.  On cross-motions for  summary judgment, the court
  ruled that the policy excludes coverage for plaintiff's personal  liability
  arising from the Johnson property because the Johnson property is not
  listed as a  residence premises and therefore is not an insured location. 
  Plaintiff appeals.

       At issue on appeal is interpretation of plaintiff's homeowner's
  insurance policy.  The  dispute in this case turns on the meaning of an
  exclusionary clause.  The exclusion to personal  liability coverage states
  in pertinent part:

     1.	Coverage E -- Personal Liability . . . do[es] not apply to "bodily 
        injury" or "property damage": . . . .

        e.	Arising out of a premises:

 

        (1) Owned by an "insured";
        (2) Rented to an "insured"; or
        (3) Rented to others by an "insured";

        that is not an "insured location."

  (Emphasis added.)  

       Plaintiff contends that the liability coverage exclusions bar coverage
  for damages arising  from premises currently owned by an insured that do
  not comprise an insured location.  He argues  that the policy covers any
  formerly owned property of the insured as such premises are not 
  specifically excluded by the definition.  Plaintiff maintains that, since
  ambiguity in insurance  contracts must be resolved against the drafter, see
  Garneau v. Curtis & Bedell, Inc., 158 Vt. 363,  367, 610 A.2d 132, 134
  (1992), we must adopt his reading of the uninsured location exclusion. 
  
       Defendant asserts that the provision should be interpreted as
  unambiguously excluding  premises previously owned by an insured.  To
  support this position, it cites to cases from other  jurisdictions that
  have held plaintiff's interpretation is an illogical and unreasonable
  reading of  similar provisions.  See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Thomas,