Central Maine Power Company v. Devereux Marine, Inc.
2013 ME 37
| Me. | 2013Background
- CMP, as owner of an overhead high-voltage line, sought indemnification from Devereux Marine for a judgment CMP paid to a Devereux employee who was electrocuted when a boat mast touched CMP’s line.
- Smith, Devereux’s employee, was injured in 2002; the line’s vertical clearance was allegedly inadequate, and Devereux’s employer negligence was contested.
- CMP paid the Smith judgment, then filed an indemnification claim against Devereux and related entities in the Superior Court, accompanied by a motion for ex parte real estate attachment.
- The trial court denied attachment, interpreting 35-A M.R.S. § 760 as creating a right of contribution rather than full indemnification.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court granted CMP’s appeal to interpret § 760 and vacate the attachment denial, holding that full indemnification applies under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §760 provide full indemnification or a contribution right? | CMP contends §760 creates contribution, not full indemnification. | Devereux argues the statute contemplates only contribution. | Full indemnification required under §760. |
| Is comparative fault applicable to reduce CMP’s indemnification recovery? | CMP would be liable to comparative fault reduction if applicable. | Devereux urges application of 14 M.R.S. §156 | Comparative fault statute does not modify §760’s indemnification obligation. |
| Does the plain language of §760 control over potential owner negligence? | Indemnification must be understood as broad and not offset by owner negligence. | Owner’s negligence could be a defense or offset under other theories. | Plain language mandates full indemnification even if owner is negligent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis Forestry Prods., Inc. v. DownEast Power Co., 12 A.3d 1180 (Me. 2011) (statutory construction requires giving meaning to all words and harmonizing scheme)
- Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Shea, 742 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (transfers all damages to violator under similar safety statute)
- Moreno v. Entergy Corp., 105 So.3d 40 (La. 2012) (Louisiana supports broad indemnity for line safety violations)
- State v. Shepard, 323 A.2d 587 (Me. 1974) (helps interpret statutory headings and context in Maine)
- Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Liberty, 2004 ME 36 (Me. 2004) (prefers specific statute interpretation over general; avoid surplusage)