Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Citation
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Parent Document
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-07-28
Other Sections in This Document (14)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
- Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 244 (1998)
Full Text
854 chars*247The policies underlying the contribution act support this result. First, an assignment of the right of contribution encourages settlement. It provides an additional means of settling the underlying case and gives the trustees an opportunity to obtain contribution from various insurers. See Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Assn, of Mass. v. Goldberg, 425 Mass. 46, 61 n.34 (1997) (“[promoting the settlement of disputes is desirable”); Polaroid Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 414 Mass. 747, 765 (1993) (settlement of disputes “a worthy goal because of court congestion”). By successfully litigating the coverage issue, the trustees were able to recoup the funds expended to settle the underlying case. Royal should not be rewarded for its refusal to participate in the defense of a case which we have decided fell within its policy’s coverage.