Traditional Tort Principles Dictate that Corporate Successors Are Not Liable to Consumers

The Son had an automobile insurance policy with Hanover Insurance Company ("Hanover") at the time of the accident. As mandated by Massachusetts law, the policy provided both uninsured and underinsured coverage for policy owners and relatives living in their households. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 175, sect. 1 13L (1988). After Han-over denied a settlement to Mrs. Vaiarella under the underinsured provision of her Son's policy, she filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court. She alleged that Hanover had violated a Massachusetts statute , Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A, sections 2(a) and 9 (1988), by refusing to make an offer of settlement. The superior court found no violation of the statute because, for the purposes of underinsured motorist coverage, Mrs. Vaiarella was not a member of her Son's household at the time of the accident. The court held for Hanover, and Mrs. Vaiarella appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On appeal, Mrs. Vaiarella argued that the superior court erroneously determined she was not a member of her Son's household for insurance purposes. She further alleged that Hanover had violated Massachusetts state law by not making a reasonable, good faith investigation of her status. Mrs. Vaiarella's primary support for both arguments was that the superior court, in making the determination as to her status, failed to consider her intention to live in her Son's household for about six months out of each year. The supreme judicial court first considered Mrs. Vaiarella's claim of membership in her Son's household. It noted that because a variety of living arrangements exist in today's society, an inflexible and precise meaning should not be applied to the term "household member ." However, the court indicated that since the household member requirement for underinsured motorist coverage was coatrolled by statute, ambiguities in the policy should not be construed against the Loyola Consumer Law Reporter insurance company. The definition of household member, the court reasoned, was a question of law that required the examination of specific facts on a case by case basis. The supreme judicial court reasoned that Mrs. Vaiarella's claim was based almost entirely on future intentions and not on an established living arrangement. Before August, 1984, the Vaiarellas had lived independently from both their children for forty years. Although the Vaiarellas planned to reside with their Son, they had lived with him for only a few months prior to the accident. Tak-en together, the Vaiarellas' history …