The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Goodman

Filing 108

Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff and Defendant in
Counterclaim,

v.

C.A. No. 10-10506-MLW

TIMOTHY W. GOODMAN,
Defendant and Plaintiff in
Counterclaim.
JUDGMENT
WOLF, D.J.

March 4, 2013

After trial of the claims and counterclaims in this case, on
March 4, 2013 the court orally stated in court its Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
52(a).

Based on

those

findings

and

conclusions,

judgment

is

entered for plaintiff Standard Fire Insurance Company ("Standard
Fire") as follows:
1. With regard to Standard Fire's request for a declaratory
judgment pursuant
Standard

Fire

to

because

28

U.S.C.

under

§2201,

Section

judgment
3

of

its

is entered for
policy

insuring

defendant Timothy Goodman's M/V Nobska (the "Policy"):
a)

The gel coat alone is an "item" for the purpose of

the exclusion in §3.C.7 of the Policy.
b)

There was a latent defect in the gel coat on the M/V

c)

The latent defect

Nobska.
in the

gel coat caused slight

"resulting damage" to the skincoat of the M/V Nobska.
d)

Marine paint is a replacement for gel coat.

e)

The only loss sustained by defendant was the cost of

replacing the defective gel coat with marine paint.
f)
"the

cost

of

Because §3.C.7 of the Policy excludes from coverage
replacing

or

repairing

any

item having

a

latent

defect," Standard Fire did not breach its contract with defendant
by declining to pay that cost, and is not obligated to pay the cost
of replacing the gel coat with marine paint either under the Policy
or as damages.
2.

With regard to defendant's counterclaims, judgment shall

enter for Standard Fire on:
a)

Count I

(Breach of Contract) .

b)

Count II (Violation of M.G.L. c. 93A and 1760).

c)

Count III (Unjust Enrichment).

d)

Count IV (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair

Dealing) .

2