Court Opinion

ID: 9915758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 15:05:29.416928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:19.107539
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  23-P-539

                          ANGELIKI G. PAPADOPOULOS

                                       vs.

            NORFOLK & DEDHAM MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       The plaintiff, Angeliki G. Papadopoulos, owns commercial

 property in Braintree that she insured through a policy issued

 by the defendant, Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company

 ("Norfolk").     In January 2018, Papadopoulos discovered that her

 property had suffered substantial water damage, and the

 following month, she filed a claim regarding such damage.                After

 Norfolk denied the claim on several grounds, Papadopoulos filed

 the current action seeking to establish Norfolk's liability. 1               A

 Superior Court judge allowed Norfolk's motion for summary

 judgment based on one of those grounds, which relates to how

 long the property had been vacant at the time the loss or damage

 occurred.    On Papadopoulos's appeal, we vacate so much of the

 1 She also brought claims alleging that Norfolk violated G. L.
 c. 93A and G. L. c. 176D in how it handled her claim.
judgment as dismissed her claims relating to Norfolk's alleged

liability for damage to her roof, and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.     The

judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

     Background.   1.   The property damage.   The commercial

building that Papadopoulos owns stands at 1-3 Commercial Street

in Braintree.   Immediately next door was another building that

shared with Papadopoulos's building what was described in the

record as a "fire/party wall" (party wall).

     Papadopoulos's building became vacant at the end of January

2017, and it remained vacant for at least another year.       In

February 2017, the adjacent building was partially demolished by

its owner.   According to Papadopoulos, the demolition caused

damage to the roof of her building and exposed the party wall to

the elements.   Over time, Papadopoulos alleges, the damage to

the roof or the uncovering of the party wall allowed water to

infiltrate the interior of her building, thereby causing

extensive water damage there.

     On April 7, 2017, Papadopoulos and her daughter visited the

property and did not see any water damage.     She discovered such

damage on a return visit in January 2018, and she notified

Norfolk of the damage on February 9, 2018.     An insurance

adjuster from Norfolk, John Tutty, promptly inspected the

property.    He prepared a report documenting what he observed

                                  2
(Tutty report).   Tutty substantiated that the Papadopoulos

building had suffered water damage from precipitation that had

entered it.   For example, Tutty stated that "[t]he drop ceiling

tiles [were] stained and some had fallen down with amount of

rain water that came with the last rain storm."   Tutty focused

on whether the roof was the source of the infiltration.    He did

not observe "any storm damage" to the roof, but he did see, and

photograph, debris on the roof and some pooling of water there.

Tutty did not address whether the infiltration of water was

caused by the exposure of the party wall.

     The Tutty report raised the possibility that three separate

provisions in the policy might bar Papadopoulos's claim.   Those

provisions were a limitation on coverage for interior water

damage caused by precipitation, an exclusion relating to

"continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water," and the

previously referenced vacancy provision on which the judge

ultimately relied.   By letter dated February 27, 2018, Norfolk

denied Papadopoulos's claim, citing all three of these

provisions.

     Apparently in response to being contacted by Papadopoulos's

counsel, a lawyer for Norfolk sent a letter dated April 20,

2018, that explained that while Norfolk was still taking the

position that it was not liable for Papadopoulos's claim, it

would send a specifically named engineer out to inspect the

                                 3
property.    The results of that planned inspection were not

included in the summary judgment record, and it is not clear if

the inspection ever took place.    In any event, Papadopoulos

hired a structural engineer to inspect the property.    The

engineer wrote a report, dated August 6, 2018, that focused on

the exposed party wall as the source of the infiltration.

Specifically, the engineer's report stated that the water damage

in the interior of the building "was produced by water

infiltrating the exposed existing remains of the fire/party

wall."    The report explained in some detail how allowing an

interior party wall to become an exterior wall can create

problems and what steps should be taken to try to avoid such

consequences.

     2.   The litigation.   After Papadopoulos filed suit, Norfolk

filed a motion for summary judgment.    The motion relied solely

on admissions that Papadopoulos had made and other undisputed

facts.    Norfolk did not submit any affidavits of its own with

respect to how the water damage was caused, e.g., whether such

damage had been caused by precipitation that had infiltrated a

damaged roof or the exposed party wall. 2

2 Norfolk asks us to take judicial notice of the summary judgment
record in separate litigation between Papadopoulos and those
involved in the demolition of the adjacent property, and it has
submitted what purports to be a supplemental appendix that
includes the relevant documents. We decline Norfolk's request
and strike the supplemental appendix from the record. See Home

                                  4
     As noted, in ruling in Norfolk's favor, the judge relied on

the vacancy provision that appears in a section entitled

"Property Loss Conditions."   That provision precludes coverage

for certain kinds of damage, including "[w]ater damage," if it

occurred more than a set period of time after the property had

become vacant.    Specifically, the provision states in pertinent

part that "[i]f the building where loss or damage occurs has

been vacant for more than [sixty] consecutive days before that

loss or damage occurs," Norfolk "will not pay for any loss or

damage caused by any of the following even if they are Covered

Causes of Loss:   (a) Vandalism; (b) Sprinkler leakage . . . ;

(c) Building glass breakage; (d) Water damage; (e) Theft; or (f)

Attempted theft."

     Based on the fact that Papadopoulos and her daughter did

not observe any water damage when they visited the property on

April 7, 2017, the judge concluded that it was undisputed that

the property first suffered such damage after that date.

Because at that point in time the property had been vacant for

more than sixty days, the judge ruled that, as a matter of law,

the vacancy provision relieved Norfolk of liability.   The judge

did not reach Norfolk's additional grounds for denying coverage.

Depot v. Kardas, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 27, 28 (2011) ("Although we
may take judicial notice of the docket entries and papers filed
in separate cases, we may not take judicial notice of facts or
evidence brought out in those separate actions").

                                  5
     Discussion.   Papadopoulos alleged that the demolition of

the adjacent building caused two types of damage to her

property:   (1) damage to the roof itself, and (2) water damage

to the interior of the building caused by the infiltration of

precipitation through the damaged roof or through the exposure

of the party wall to the elements.   We address Norfolk's

liability with respect to the water damage first.   In doing so,

we accept Papadopoulos's theory of what caused the water damage. 3

     As noted, neither Papadopoulos nor her daughter observed

any water damage on April 7, 2017.   Papadopoulos did not submit

any other evidence that water damage had occurred by that date,

at which point more than sixty days already had passed since the

property had become vacant.   Accordingly, we agree with the

judge insofar as he concluded that -- under the plain language

of the vacancy provision -- the water damage to the property is

not covered.

     Papadopoulos counters that if the water damage was caused

by the demolition of the adjacent building in February 2017 --

as she maintains and we accept as true -- it is that date that

3 In this regard, we note that we are required to view the
summary judgment record in the light most favorable to
Papadopoulos, the nonmoving party. Edwards v. Commonwealth, 488
Mass. 555, 556 (2021). For purposes of opposing summary
judgment, Papadopoulos supported her theory of what caused the
water damage based on her own personal observations (e.g., her
affidavit describing "significant tears in the roof membrane"),
and on a report prepared by her engineering expert.

                                 6
should be used for determining when the loss or damage occurred.

Because February 2017 was well within the initial sixty days

after the property became vacant, she argues that the vacancy

provision does not bar recovery.       Papadopoulos supports that

argument by reference to case law that addresses insurance

coverage where there was a chain of causation.       See Jussim v.

Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 415 Mass. 24, 27-30 (1993).       That

case law endorses an analysis that has become known as the

"train of events test."   Hanover New England Ins. Co. v. Smith,

35 Mass. App. Ct. 417, 419 (1993), quoting Jussim, supra at 27.

Under it, there can be coverage for "a covered event which

causes a loss in the form of an excluded event" (citation

omitted).   Hanover New England Ins. Co., supra at 420.

     Passing over whether Papadopoulos preserved her argument

based on the train of events test, 4 we are unpersuaded that such

an argument applies here.   The train of events test is not a

hard and fast rule of law; rather, parties to an insurance

contract are free to agree to exclude coverage for certain kinds

of loss or damage even where the original cause of it would

otherwise be covered.   Hanover New England Ins. Co., 35 Mass.

4 Norfolk argues that Papadopoulos waived the issue by not
arguing it in Superior Court. Papadopoulos points out that even
if she did not refer to the doctrine by name, she did argue that
the date of the event that caused the water damage was the one
that should be used.

                                   7
App. Ct. at 420 ("train of events test is not a principle of law

that applies regardless of the policy language").   We agree with

Norfolk that this is what occurred here.   The plain language of

the vacancy provision states that Norfolk is not liable for

water damage that occurs more than sixty days after the property

has become vacant "even if [it is a] Covered Cause[] of Loss."

This language serves to render the original cause of the water

damage beside the point.

     While we agree with the judge that the water damage is

barred by the vacancy provision, the same is not true with

respect to any damage that the demolition caused to the roof

itself.   Norfolk has not presented any other viable theory for

why Papadopoulos's claim for damage to the roof fails as a

matter of law. 5

     We therefore vacate so much of the judgment as dismissed

Papadopoulos's claims that Norfolk was liable for damage to her

roof (including those claims based on alleged violations of

G. L. c. 93A and c. 176D that relate to such damage) and remand

this case for further proceedings consistent with this

5 Norfolk does argue that Papadopoulos's claims are independently
barred on the ground that she failed to provide timely notice of
them. However, on the current record Norfolk has not
demonstrated how it was prejudiced by any late notice. See
Darcy v. Hartford Ins. Co., 407 Mass. 481, 485 (1990). We are
unpersuaded by Norfolk's argument that it should not be required
to show such prejudice.

                                 8
memorandum and order. 6   The judgment is affirmed in all other

respects.

                                      So ordered.

                                      By the Court (Vuono, Milkey &
                                        Hand, JJ. 7),

                                      Assistant Clerk

Entered:    January 8, 2024.

6 To the extent that Papadopoulos maintains that she is entitled
to judgment in her favor on any of her claims as a matter of
law, there is no merit to such arguments. We deny
Papadopoulos's request for appellate attorney's fees and costs.
7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  9