The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the driver, the owner, and the owner's business.
The plaintiffs alleged negligent operation of the vehicle as well as negligent business practices, including negligent training, supervision, and entrustment.
The automobile insurer accepted its duty to defend, but brought a motion to compel the commercial general liability (CGL) insurer to also defend the action based on the negligent business practice claims.
The motion judge found the CGL insurer had a duty to defend.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the negligent supervision and entrustment claims were derivative of the negligent use and operation of the motor vehicle.
As such, they fell squarely within the CGL policy's automobile exclusion clause, and the CGL insurer had no duty to defend.
