Ellis v. Commerce Ins. Co.

Full title: JAMES N. ELLIS, SR., v. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Court: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Nov 7, 2014

13-P-1861 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 7, 2014)

Opinion

13-P-1861

11-07-2014

JAMES N. ELLIS, SR., v. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY.

By the Court (Graham, Fecteau & Sullivan, JJ.), Clerk

NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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 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.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

James N. Ellis, Sr. (Ellis Sr.), appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court declaring that he is not an insured under a policy of automobile insurance issued by defendant Commerce Insurance Company. We affirm.

Ellis Sr. contends that he is entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under the policy because on the coverage date in question he was a member of the same household as his son, James N. Ellis, Jr. In the application for commercial insurance, coverage was sought for "Ellis & Ellis, Nicholas Ellis, [and] James N. Ellis, Jr. As Partners." The application form contains a check mark next to the box labeled "Business Auto." Successive business automobile policies were issued to "Ellis and Ellis[,] Nicholas and James Ellis."

The underinsured motorist endorsement provides coverage to the household member of a business "[i]f the form of your business under Item One of the Declarations is shown as an individual." At all relevant times, Item One of the Declarations listed the "form of business" as "Other Direct Billed Commercial." The applicant also checked the "partnership" box, not the "individual" box, on the application. The application is incorporated into the policy.

A policy of automobile insurance which is clear and unambiguous will be enforced in accordance with its terms. See Kanamaru v. Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 396, 399 (2008). The policy language here is clear and unambiguous. See Valley Forge Ins. Co. (CNA) v. Katz, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 759, 763 (2005). The policy was not issued to a business for which coverage is provided to household members.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Graham, Fecteau & Sullivan, JJ.),

Clerk Entered: November 7, 2014.