TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I. THE DEFENDANT FAILED BELOW TO MOVE TO
STRIKE THE CATHERINE RUDDER AND MICHAEL SCOTT AFFIDAVITS AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, THEREBY WAIVING ANY OBJECTIONS ON APPEAL; IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE, THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. NOTWITHSTANDING Sxxxxxxx’S FATAL FAILURE
TO MOVE TO STRIKE THE AFFIDAVITS NOW COMPLAINED OF, THEY COMPORT WITH
RULE 56(e) STANDARDS AND, AS SUCH, WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN THE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT RECORD ANYWAY. . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Both affidavits fulfill Rule 56(e)’s personal knowledge requirement. . . . . 12
B. The facts contained in the affidavit
(e.g. the attached fire reports) would
be admissible at trial and are therefore properly a part of the summary judgment record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. The attached fire reports were independently admissible and therefore need not have been
sworn or certified. . . . . . . . 17
2. All primary facts contained in
the fire report would have been admissible at trial pursuant to
the official written records exception to hearsay. . . . . . . 19
C. Sxxxxxxx’s statement to a fire
Department official, contained in
the fire report, that he left a
candle burning in his store overnight
is admissible. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
LEASE PROVISIONS IN CONTROVERSY WERE DEPENDENT COVENANTS, AND AS SUCH, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SHELTERED FROM
LIABILITY BY THE “NO SUBROGATION” CLAUSE WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BREACHING HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO ABIDE BY THE “LEASE’S” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. . . . . 24
IV. AS THE “LEASE” UNAMBIGUOUSLY OBLIGATED Sxxxxxxx TO CARRY A CGL INSURANCE POLICY, WHICH COVERS ACCIDENTAL FIRES, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE, AS A COMMERCIAL TENANT, Sxxxxxxx WAS NOT AN IMPLIED CO-INSURED ON THE LANDLORD’S FIRE POLICY, AND IS THUS NOT SHIELDED FROM SEACO’S SUBROGATION SUIT. . . . . . . . . 27
A. A standard form CGL policy, such as
the one that the defendant was
obligated to have, covers accidental
fires such as the one in question. . . 33
B. Catherine Rudder set forth in an uncontroverted affidavit that CGL
policy would have covered the fire. . . 37
V. SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON
THE STRENGTH OF INDEPENDENT GROUNDS AS
WELL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CASES:Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bearce,412 Mass. 442 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31American Express v. Allessandrini,1979 Mass.App.Div. 269 (1979) . . . . . . . . . 9Beacon Textiles Corp. v. Employers Mut.Liability Ins. Co. of Wis.,355 Mass. 643 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . 35-36Commonwealth v. Martin,47 Mass.App.Ct. 240 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . 24Commonwealth v. Piecuch,49 Mass.App.Ct. 1116 (2000) . . . . . . . . 22-23Commonwealth v. Slavski,245 Mass. 405 (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . 18-20Davis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,708 F.2d 862 (1st Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . 6Devlin v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea,1993 WL 818629 (Mass. Super.) . . . . . . . . 10Eastern Products Corp. v. Continental Gas Co.,58 Mass.App.Ct. 16 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . 38First National Bank of Cape Cod v.North Adams Hoosac Savings Bank,7 Mass.App.Ct. 790 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . 15Flood v. Southland Corp.,33 Mass.App.Ct. 287 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . 23Fowles v. Lingos,30 Mass.App.Ct. 435 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . 7In re Adoption of George,27 Mass.App.Ct. 265 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . 20Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v.Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitt.,42 Mass.App.Ct. 94 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . 36Lexington Ins. Co. v. All Regions Chem. Labs, Inc.,419 Mass. 712 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tabor,407 Mass. 354 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Lumber Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zoltek Corp.,419 Mass. 704 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Offices Unlimited, Inc.,419 Mass. 466 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 31-32Madsen v. Erwin,395 Mass. 715 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9Mattoon v. City of Pittsfield,56 Mass.App.Ct. 124 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . 23Middlesex Supply, Inc. v. Martin & Sons, Inc.,354 Mass. 373 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Muldoon v. LaChance Financial Services, Inc.,2002 Mass.App.Div. 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Patsos v. First Albany Corp.,433 Mass. 323 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Peterson v. Silva,428 Mass. 751 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Proteon v. Digital Equipment Corp.,1999 WL 1336438 (Mass.Super.) . . . . . 11-12, 17Seaco v. Barbosa,435 Mass. 772 (2002) . . . . . . . 28-29, 31, 35St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.Boston Housing Authority,25 Mass.App.Ct. 6 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 9Stetson v. Board of Selectmen of Carlisle,369 Mass. 755 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9Thorell v. ADAP,58 Mass.App.Ct. 334 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . 7Vappi v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co.,348 Mass. 427 (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 35Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc.,437 Mass. 708 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . 25-26RULE:Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(e) . . . . . . . .5, 10-11, 12, 17STATUTE:Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 148 § 2 (2003) . . . . . . . . 19
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
1998 ISO Occurrence CGL Policy(Insurance Services Office, Inc. 1997) . . 35, 37Joseph G. Blute et al.,Commercial Liability Insurance Coverage:The Basics in Five Sessions,12 (MCLE, Inc. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Robert A. Buhlman,Massachusetts Liability Insurance Manual, “Comprehensive and Commercial GeneralLiability Policies”,§ 4.5.1, 4-4, 4-10, 4-15(Janice Rowan et al., eds., MCLE, Inc. 2000) . 35John G. Neylon,Tenant As Implied Coinsured on Landlord’sFire Policy: Exoneration From Negligenceor Rational Public Policy?,35 Business Law Review 83 (2002)Lee Russ & Thomas Segall,Couch on Insurance, 7 Couch on Ins. § 103:19(3rd ed., West 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . 36-37Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,Federal Practice and Procedure vol. 10B,§ 2738 (3rd ed., West 2003) . . . . . . . 7, 9, 21Hon. William Young, John Pollets & Christopher PoredaMassachusetts Practice: Evidence,20 Mass. Prac. Evidence § 803.8(2nd ed., West 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19