Before the court is Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's. ("GElCO") motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Michael J.

Similar documents
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No April 20, 2001

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 16, 2009 Session

I. Introduction. Appeals this year was Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2015 COA

5 Ld,a~O. $~ P'. C) ct 1~\~ Company's motion for summary judgment and (2) plaintiffs Matthew Wallace and Freja

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV148 (Judge Keeley)

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THOMAS H. HEATON, ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF CLIFF ADAM HEATON

Decided: July 11, S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

DEMIR V. FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. 140 P.3d 1111, 140 N.M. 162 (N.M.App. 06/28/2006)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS June 10, 2004 PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL.

JAMES I. LANE, : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs. : AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 19 September Term, 2008 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY RAY E. COMER, JR.

ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No IN THE SUPREIE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff and Respondent,

THOMAS M. STONE OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No December 16, 1996

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) Judgment on Motion for Determination of a Question of Law

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

PREVIEW; Cross v. Warren: Can Injured Third- Parties Stack Liability Insurance?

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Vermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 10, 2004 Session

2018 IL App (5th) NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

INTRODUCTION. Earl and Adeline Allen ("Allen or Aliens") are judgment creditors of Lessard

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss.!,. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV J BEFORE THE COURT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO. Kovach et al. ) CASE NO. 08CIV1048 ) ) ) v. ) February 13, 2009 ) Tran et al. ) ) Judgment Entry )

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: October 13, NO. S-1-SC-35681

[Cite as Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 118, 2013-Ohio-1957.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Compton, Senior Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO.: A

Indiana Supreme Court Clarifies Underinsured Motorist Insurance Law

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CURE UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE NEW JERSEY

FRANK AND BETTINA GAMBRELL, Plaintiffs/Appellants, IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellee.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 18, 2007 Session

2016 PA Super 69. Appeal from the Order December 12, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. Docket No Terry Ann Bartlett

2013 PA Super 97. : : : Appellee : No. 124 WDA 2012

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm")

2010 PA Super 133 : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : :

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CAUSE NO.: A

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY

O'Connor-Kohler v. State Farm Ins Co

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Government Employees Insurance Company, Plaintiff,

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ANPAC LOUISIANA INSURANCE COMPANY **********

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, : No. 02AP-1222 : (C.P.C. No. 00CVC-6742) : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

2017 HB 2104 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE AND INSURANCE SETOFF

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Respondents. / ANSWER BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

INDIANA UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE AND UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE SELECTION/REJECTION

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Insurance 1-19

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. RICHARD A. SCOTT and ELAINE : M. SCOTT, his wife, : Plaintiffs : vs. : NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-KLR.

DANIELLE L. CHENARD vs. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY & another. SJC SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

SOUTH CAROLINA OFFER OF ADDITIONAL UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE AND OPTIONAL UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED April 27, Appeal No DISTRICT III MICHAEL J. KAUFMAN AND MICHELLE KAUFMAN,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BROWN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 8/8/2011 :

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

2008 VT 103. No Progressive Insurance Company. On Appeal from v. Franklin Superior Court

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. LACHLAN MACLEARN & a. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY. Argued: October 19, 2011 Opinion Issued: January 27, 2012

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 70

F'E:B 06 20!^9 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. LOIS DOREEN, et al. Case No. 9T^02r 91. Plaintiffs-Appellants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT CRAWFORD COUNTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES CASE NUMBER

DO NOT SIGN UNTIL YOU READ

Barbee v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

Insurance Law. Louisiana Law Review. W. Shelby McKenzie. Volume 43 Number 2 Developments in the Law, : A Symposium November 1982

Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v Ironshore Indem. Inc NY Slip Op 31169(U) July 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013

Serpa v Liberty Mut. Mid-Atlantic Ins. Co NY Slip Op 33438(U) November 23, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2016 Judge:

CASE NO. 1D Kathy Maus and Julius F. Parker, III, of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

COUNSEL JUDGES. Sosa, S.J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: WILLIAM RIORDAN, Justice, MARY C. WALTERS, Justice AUTHOR: SOSA OPINION

In The Supreme Court of Virginia EBENEZER MANU, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,

2014 PA Super 192. Appellees No EDA 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JLK. versus

S09G0348. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATON et al. We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Staton v.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. DONALD E. GRIFFIN v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2005 OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. SARA CHAMBERLIN, et al.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

"Motor vehicle liability policy" defined. (a) A "motor vehicle liability policy" as said term is used in this Article shall mean an

WASHINGTON UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE SELECTION/REJECTION

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Transcription:

STATE OF MAINE CLTMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05-065, MICHAEL J. BLDD Plaintiff GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Before the court is Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's ("GElCO") motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Michael J. Budd's ("Plaintiff") underinsured motorist claim. BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed. On April 7, 2004, Plaintiff and his wife, Melanie Budd, were injured in a two-car automobile accident in Dover, New Hampshre. The other car involved in the accident was a taxicab owned by Sunshne Taxi Company ("Sunshine"), and operated by Patrick Cammett. At the time of the accident, Sunshine maintained a contract for insurance with AIG Insurance Company ("AIG"). The AIG policy provided single limit liability coverage in the amount of $350,000 per accident. On the date of the accident, Plaintiff was insured under a Maine Family Automobile Insurance Policy issued by GEICO ("Policy"). The Policy contained uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. On November 11, 2004, Plaintiff and hs wife settled claims with Sunshine and AIG for $350,000, wherein Plaintiff accepted $5,000 as compensation for hs 1

loss of consortium claim, and his wife received $345,000 for her injuries.' Plaintiff has not released hs personal injury claims against Sunshine/ AIG. DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks recovery against GEICO, arguing that the Sunshne vehicle was an underinsured automobile, as defined by the GEICO policy or Maine statute. GEICO contends, however, that a comparison of the applicable policy provisions under the law confirms that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any underinsured coverage in this matter. Maine defines an underinsured motor vehicle as "a motor vehicle for which coverage is provided, but in amounts less than the minimum limits for bodily injury liability insurance provided for under the motorist's financial responsibility laws of this State or less than the limits of the injured party's uninsured vehicle coverage." 24-A M.R.S.A. 2902(1). The parties agree that Sunshine's AIG policy complies with Maine's financial responsibility laws. See 29-A M.R.S.A. 1611(2) (minimum insurance requirements). The Policy defines an underinsured automobile as "an auto for which the total of all bodily injury liability insurance that is available in the event of an accident is less than the applicable limit of liability under this coverage." This definition is in compliance with the plain statutory language of 24-A M.R.S.A. 2902(1). GEICO contends that, as a matter of law, Sunshine is not "underinsured," as the available coverage for Sunshne's vehcle, at $350,000 per accident, exceeds This fact was stipulated to by the parties at oral argument, and the record has been supplemented with a copy of the release signed by the Budds. The release details the apportionment of the settlement between Plaintiff and his wife.

the Plaintiff's underinsured limit of $300,000 per accident. See York Ins. Co. v. Bowden, 2004 ME. 112, q[ 8; 855 A.2d 1157, 1159. This is the comparison for underinsurance under 2902(1); however, if 24-A M.R.S.A. 2902(6) applies, the the test of whether Sunshine was underinsured requires a comparison between motorist policy and Plaintiff's recovery for personal injuries from Sunshine / AIG. GEICO argues that 2902(6) cannot be applied because the first phrase of this subsection, known as the "trigger clause," requires the tortfeasor to first have been defined as "underinsured" pursuant to 5 2902(1). Ths artificially separates and sublimates 2902(6) to an abstract inquiry as to the status of the tortfeasor, when the section is plainly applicable to any situation in which there are multiple accident victims, as there are here. Indeed, the point of 2902(6) is to ensure that "in certain cases where more than one person is injured in an accident... [every] person is covered to the full extent of the underinsured motorist coverage purchased." L.D. 2043, Summary (119~~ Legis. 1999). Subsection (6) itself reads: When 2 or more persons are legally entitled to recover damages from a particular owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehcle, the amount of underinsured vehcle coverage applicable to each injured person is determined by subtracting any payments actually made to the injured person from any bodily injury liability insurance coverage applicable to the particular owner or operator of the underinsured motor vehicle from the injured person's, operator's or owner's underinsured vehicle coverage policy limits if applicable to that person. The amount of underinsured motor vehcle coverage must be further reduced by the amount by whch the bodily injury liability insurance coverage applicable to the particular owner or operator of the underinsured motor vehicle exceeds all payments from that coverage to all persons legally entitled to recover damages from that particular owner or operator of the underinsured motor vehicle. This

subsection does not prohibit an insurer from providing greater amounts of underinsured vehcle coverage than are required under h s section. [emphasis added.] Both sides acknowledge that Plaintiff and his wife were injured in the accident. Therefore, 2902(6)'s test controls Plaintiff's right to recovery. Plaintiff's.. ydnnaffemev31mlt unk hs underinsured motorist policy is $iofhxw I T whch is more than the amount Plaintiff received from Sunshine's bodily injury liability policy. Plaintiff will be allowed to demonstrate that his damages exceeded any amount received for personal injuries from Sunshine / AIG, for purposes of collecting from GEICO under h s own uninsured / underinsured motorist policy. The entry is: Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. tr; Dated at Portland, Maine ths /6 day of &,2006. L' Justice, Superior court

COURTS d County x 287 041 12-0287 ROBERT HATCH ESQ THOMPSON & BOWIE PO BOX 4630 PORTLAND ME 04112-4630 F COURTS ind County lox 287 ne 041 12-0287 SHELDON TEPLER ESQ HARDY WOLF & DOWNING PO BOX 3065 LEWISTON ME 04243-3065