Aleshia D. Diviney v. University of Maine System
2017 ME 56
Me.2017Background
- On January 17, 2014, Diviney slipped on ice at the University of Southern Maine and sustained serious injuries requiring surgery.
- Diviney’s father first emailed USM risk management on February 3, 2014; USM requested an incident report and inquired about a claim.
- USM (via Cross Insurance) communicated with Diviney and her father through March–May 2014; Cross Insurance denied the claim in writing on May 14, 2014.
- Diviney did not serve formal notice under the Maine Tort Claims Act (14 M.R.S. § 8107) until October 31, 2014—outside the 180-day statutory notice period.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the University of Maine System, concluding Diviney failed to show "good cause" to excuse the untimely notice; Diviney appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Good Cause for missing 180‑day deadline presents a factual issue | Good cause existed while UMS communicated; factual dispute precludes summary judgment | Good cause ended when claim was denied in writing; remaining 63 days sufficed to file | No genuine factual dispute; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the February communications satisfied statutory notice | February email and subsequent contacts tolled the deadline | February email did not meet § 8107 notice requirements | February email insufficient to satisfy § 8107 |
| Whether § 8107 tolls the 180‑day period while good cause exists but later removed | § 8107 should be read to toll until the impediment is removed | Statute contains no tolling language; deadline runs from accrual unless good cause shown | Court declines to adopt tolling beyond statutory text |
| Whether plaintiff provided sufficient evidence why notice could not be filed during remaining 63 days | Plaintiff was injured, inexperienced, and unable to find an attorney within deadline | Plaintiff offered no evidence of attempts or inability to file or retain counsel | Plaintiff failed to present evidentiary support; no good cause shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmes v. Mark Travel Corp., 116 A.3d 466 (Me. 2015) (summary judgment review and construing facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Brown v. Delta Tau Delta, 118 A.3d 789 (Me. 2015) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Lockridge v. University of Maine Sys., 597 F.3d 464 (1st Cir.) (procedural summary judgment standards cited)
- Estate of Cabatit v. Canders, 105 A.3d 439 (Me. 2014) (burden allocation when defendant moves for summary judgment)
- Smith v. Voisine, 650 A.2d 1350 (Me. 1994) (defining circumstances constituting good cause under Maine Tort Claims Act)
- Peters v. City of Westbrook, 787 A.2d 141 (Me. 2001) (narrow interpretation of good cause exception)
- Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 3 A.3d 390 (Me. 2010) (strict construction of immunity exceptions)
- Bangor & Aroostook R.R. Co. v. Daigle, 607 A.2d 533 (Me. 1992) (Rule 56(e) obligation to produce admissible evidence)
- Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 969 A.2d 897 (Me. 2009) (evidentiary requirements opposing summary judgment)