This case proves helpful in defining "loading or unloading" and in determining how automobile liability insurance and general liability insurance respond, respectively, to claims arising from such commercial operations.

A business engaged in the transportation of elderly and handicapped people by vans equipped for the purpose carried its automobile liability insurance in one major insurer and its general liability insurance in another. The estate of an elderly lady sued the insured for damages resulting from injuries suffered by the lady and her subsequent death. Two employees had strapped her in her wheelchair in her upstairs bedroom and carried her downstairs to the front porch of her residence, toward a parked van for transportation to an adult day-care center. One of the employees lost his footing on the porch, and the wheelchair tumbled down the porch steps to the pavement below with the woman in it.

Each insurer filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor, the issue being the application of the two policies in the circumstances. The automobile policy, under liability coverage, defined a covered "accident" to include "....the loading or unloading of an auto." The general liability policy contained an exclusion for "loading or unloading of....any automobile...." Appeal followed the trial court's granting of the motion by the general liability insurer and denying that of the automobile liability carrier "on the ground that the accident arose out of the 'loading' of the van."

The appeal court cited three prior Massachusetts cases in which it formulated its position on the issue at hand. It stated that it "has adopted the 'complete operation' rule and rejected the narrower 'coming to rest' doctrine in construing such 'loading and unloading' clauses in automobile liability insurance policies." It said that it defined the operation of unloading as "a continuous transaction ending with the deposit of the goods in the hands of the purchaser." It was concluded that the attendants were "in the process" of loading the lady into the van.

The order of the trial court was affirmed that denied the motion of the automobile liability insurer for declaratory relief and that allowed the motion of the general liability insurer for summary judgment. The appeal court said that, whereas the "loading and unloading" language was similar in both policies, it must be interpreted in the same manner in the general liability policy, where it was an exclusion.

(THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. AETNA LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Middlesex. June 4, 1991. 410 Mass. 1002, 571 N.E.2d 1383. CCH 1991-92 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3392.)