A specialty policy identified as a law enforcement professional liability policy covered sums an insured town "...shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of acts arising out of Law Enforcement activities." It contained an exclusion for "....acts or occurrences arising out of the ownership, operation, use, loading or unloading of any land motor vehicle."

A passenger in an automobile being pursued by police in a high speed chase and two people in a car struck by the vehicle being pursued were injured in the accident. They sued the town that employed the pursuing police officer alleging, principally, that the town "....was negligent in its failure to adequately train and supervise its police officers."

Trial court partial summary judgment required the insurer to defend and contribute to a settlement. At the conclusion of the appeal process, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court drew an analogy between the situation under review and a similar one involving a homeowners policy.

The conclusion was that automobile insurance, rather than homeowners insurance, could be relied on by a homeowner (negligent supervision over use of an automobile was alleged in a lawsuit) when a covered operator of an insured car owned by the homeowner was involved in an accident. By the same reasoning that such liability should not be covered by a homeowners policy, the court concluded that the automobile exclusion in the law enforcement professional liability policy relieved the insurer from duty to defend and indemnify.

The summary judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of the insurer and against the insured village.

(TOWN OF AYER ET AL., Plaintiffs v. IMPERIAL CASUALTY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. June 9, 1994. CCH 1994 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4958.)