Chalmers Hardenbergh v. Patrons Oxford Insurance Company
70 A.3d 1237
Me.2013Background
- Hardenbergh maintained a Patrons Oxford homeowners policy that covers injury from libel, slander or defamation, but excludes injury arising from the insured’s business pursuits.
- Pan Am Systems, Inc. and others sued Hardenbergh in federal court, asserting defamation arising from publications in Atlantic Northeast Rails & Ports newsletters, e-bulletins, and website; Hardenbergh is editor/publisher/owner of the publication.
- Hardenbergh tendered defense to Patrons Oxford, which refused to defend.
- Hardenbergh sued in Maine Superior Court for a declaratory judgment of Patrons Oxford’s duty to defend and for costs incurred in defending the Pan Am action; Patrons Oxford moved to dismiss; Hardenbergh moved for summary judgment; Patrons Oxford cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court granted Hardenbergh summary judgment, finding a duty to defend against the original Pan Am complaint; the federal Pan Am action later amended its complaint.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding Patrons Oxford has no duty to defend because the Pan Am allegations fall entirely within the policy’s business pursuits exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Pan Am fall within the business pursuits exclusion? | Patrons Oxford: yes, exclusion applies; all statements arose from Hardenbergh’s trade. | Hardenbergh: no, some statements could fall within coverage; broader reading of complaint. | No; Pan Am allegations fall entirely within business pursuits; no duty to defend. |
| Is the appeal moot after dismissal and amendment of Pan Am? | Appeal retains controversy since costs incurred and duty to defend remain at issue. | Moot because underlying action was dismissed, and duty to defend is not determinable at this stage. | The appeal is not moot; controversy remains over defense costs from the original complaint and duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 59 A.3d 1280 (Me. 2013) (duty to defend depends on complaint language and policy coverage)
- Mitchell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 A.3d 876 (Me. 2011) (strict construction of exclusions; coverage governs duty to defend)
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Me. Teachers Ass’n, 449 A.2d 358 (Me. 1982) (duty to defend arises from allegations and policy language)
- Doe I v. Williams, 61 A.3d 718 (Me. 2013) (appeal not moot despite related developments when controversy remains)