Brett Deane v. Central Maine Power Company, 322 A.3d 1223

From 2018 to 2020, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) sent misleading winter disconnection notices to customers behind on bills, omitting that service could only be disconnected in winter with Maine PUC approval.
Plaintiffs Deane, Lavender, and Mitchell (among others) received these notices, claiming emotional and financial harm from the threats of winter disconnection.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) investigated CMP, found rule violations, and CMP paid a $500,000 administrative penalty.
Plaintiffs filed suit for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, statutory violations under 35-A M.R.S. § 1501, Unfair Trade Practices, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
The trial court dismissed the misrepresentation and statutory claims (for lack of pecuniary harm and no private right of action), and later granted summary judgment for CMP on IIED (insufficient evidence of 'severe' distress).
Plaintiffs appealed; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed all lower court judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Misrepresentation: Pecuniary Harm	Emotional or payment pressure should suffice for damages	Only actual pecuniary loss, not emotional harm, is recoverable	Dismissal affirmed; no pecuniary harm pleaded
Private Right Under 35-A M.R.S. § 1501	Statute allows private actions for any injury from violation	§1501 does not create a private right of action	Statute does not provide private right of action
IIED: Severity of Emotional Distress	Plaintiffs’ distress severe (anxiety, sleeplessness, etc.)	Symptoms not objectively severe; no medical diagnosis	No severe distress shown; summary judgment for CMP
IIED: Inference from Outrageous Conduct	Extreme conduct suffices to infer severe distress	CMP’s conduct not enough to warrant inference of severity	Conduct not extreme enough to infer severe distress

Flaherty v. Muther, 17 A.3d 640 (Me. 2011) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation in Maine)
Jourdain v. Dineen, 527 A.2d 1304 (Me. 1987) (pecuniary loss required for misrepresentation claims)
Curtis v. Porter, 784 A.2d 18 (Me. 2001) (elements of, and standards for, IIED claims in Maine)
Vicnire v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 401 A.2d 148 (Me. 1979) (IIED requires severe distress; extreme conduct may at times suffice)
Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707 (Me. 2010) (objective standard for IIED severity; rare inference only for extreme conduct)
Charlton v. Town of Oxford, 774 A.2d 366 (Me. 2001) (statutory analysis on implied private rights of action)