O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, 2007 WL 1977940 (Mass. Super.) (June 19, 2007) (van Gestel, J.).

This dispute over interpretation of contractual language came before the court on cross motions for summary judgment. The contract dealt with workers’ compensation and general liability insurance, and set forth a specific formula for calculating loss reimbursement payments that defendant was obliged to make to plaintiff. While purporting to use this formula, an amendment to the contract nevertheless inaccurately calculated defendant’s maximum reimbursement liability. Defendant subsequently refused to make any payments in excess of this calculated amount.

Both parties agreed that the court could and should base its decision solely upon a proper interpretation of the contractual language at issue. Acting on this suggestion, the court ruled that defendant’s maximum liability as calculated in the amendment “was a clear error in calculation or typography, not a mutual mistake warranting rescission.” Id. at *6. Defendant’s liability was therefore to be determined according to a correct application of the formula set forth in the agreement. The court left it to the parties to calculate this revised amount, subject to assessment by the court if agreement could not be reached.

Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority v. City of Somerville, 2007 WL 1129404
(Mass. Super.)  (April 2, 2007) (van Gestel, J.).

Coming before the court on cross motions for summary judgment and a motion for judgment on a case stated, this matter presents a single question of law – namely, whether commercial advertising by the MBTA in and on its own facilities may be regulated by the communities in which those facilities are located. Judge

van Gestel held that the MBTA is immune from such regulation. Indeed, it could not be said “that commercial advertising on the MBTA’s facilities … are not part of the legislatively mandated function of the MBTA,” or at least “reasonably related to that function.” Id. at *2. Summary judgment for the MBTA was therefore granted.