
    Jacqueline L. CERNAK vs. Dennis M. LABRECQUE & another
    District Court Department Appellate Division, Western District Trial Court of the Commonwealth of.Massachusetts
    December 4, 1980
    Lewis A. Whitney, Jr. for the plaintiff.
    Charles K. Bergin, Jr. for the defendant.
   OPINION

MULLANEY, J.

This is an action arising out or damage io the real property of the plaintiff - -evasioned by intentional acts in the rirff-u- of .vandalism perpetrated by the defendant, Dmurs M. LaBrecque (LaBrecque). !u addition to suing LaBrecque the plaintiff abo sued Commercial Union Assurance Companies (Commercial), a company which p¡ tvided the compulsory property damage vo-'erape on the LaBrecque vehicle.

LaBrecque was the owner and operator of the vehicle when it was driven mut plaintiffs hay field and the vandabsm «-.'«suited in considerable damage. Tim curt found LaBreque’s conduct -or mUmm-mi] and plaintiff admits as much ¡n h< ! -Lf 1 he court found agamst L-Br ■ -oí b.h! that the insurer, Com.mmr-l »<it liable.

The sole issue is whet Ik* LaBn- 'p-.-b intentional conduct wm m Mo Massachusetts compuls a;, mm, .Vele liability property damugf .--vi-, -. t u« e- urt had denied a roques1 f-.-r nM -■ M->- 'die applicable Massaehu»t iu ,. ,ntomobile policy does not -..-elude ¡'torn property damage covet age acts of'-andal ism by an insured operator”

General Laws, c. 9<' <-< e, t ¡ -< - if in part”.. .the fn.suim v •, «- .-ti of the insured all sum.-- J.ie msmed shall become legally obligated1 o pay as d.itnraes because of injury to ,; deAtuuion of property, ..causen t y aeciu-mClause Sixth of G.L. c, 5 s -ec 4 «--s.- m part “. .. that no coni).any - my f '• - v -my person against leva* im > - n > injury, other than boJiiy ; 'jmy, iid:; deliberate or intention;.1 mtc ot v. rongdoing..Commercial’s policy, moreover, defined accident as meaning “an unexpected, unintended event that causes .., property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an auto.”

The trial judge in his findings found that the damage cáused by LaBrecque to the field of the plaintiff was as the result of an intentional act and thereby not an accident, “If conduct is negligent it cannot also be intentional. Similarly, a finding of intentional conduct precludes a finding that the same conduct was negligent.” Sabatinelli v. Butler, 363 Mass. 565, 567 (1973).

There was no error in the denial of plaintiffs request for ruling and therefore the report is dismissed.

Paul V. Mullaney, J.

William T. Walsh, PJ.

Allan McGuane, J.  