Cookson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
2012 ME 7
| Me. | 2012Background
- Cookson bought a West Newfield home (2004) and a used Case 590M tractor (2005) for ~$27,000 to aid construction.
- In 2007 he began building a home on land in Acton and used the tractor for site work, snow removal, and moving earth at both properties.
- The Case 590M was destroyed by fire on December 22, 2007 while parked at his father’s property.
- Cookson held two Liberty Mutual homeowner policies (West Newfield and Acton); both exclude motor vehicles from coverage but include an exception for vehicles not subject to registration used to service an insured’s residence.
- Liberty Mutual denied the claim (Feb. 29, 2008) citing the broad exclusion; Cookson sued seeking coverage and declaratory relief.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Liberty Mutual (Mar. 22, 2011), holding the tractor falls within the exclusion since it is a motorized vehicle subject to registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Case 590M is subject to motor vehicle registration under the policies | Cookson argues the tractor is not the type subject to registration. | Liberty Mutual contends the tractor falls within the registration-required category. | No; tractor is subject to registration per statutory scheme. |
| Whether the exception for vehicles not subject to registration used to service an insured’s residence covers the tractor | Cookson relies on Kimball to include residential tractors in the exception. | Liberty Mutual argues the tractor is not the type typically exempt and is not used to service the residence in a qualifying sense. | No; Court held the tractor does not fit the exception as used. |
| How to interpret 'subject to motor vehicle registration' and 'used to service an insured’s residence' in the policy | Cookson contends ambiguity should be construed in his favor and the use is servicing the residence. | Liberty Mutual maintains the phrase is unambiguous and the tractor is not within the exception. | Ambiguities resolved in insured’s favor; majority treats use as not satisfying servicing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimball v. New England Guar. Ins. Co., 642 A.2d 1347 (Me. 1994) (unambiguous 'subject to motor vehicle registration' includes certain types regardless of on-road use)
- Bowen v. Hanover Ins. Co., 599 A.2d 1150 (Me. 1991) (motor vehicles are inherently dangerous; homeowners policies exclude on-road vehicles)
- Bumgardner v. Terra Nova Ins. Co., 806 So.2d 945 (La.Ct.App. 2002) (broader interpretation of 'used to service residence' leads to policy implications)
- Peerless Ins. Co. v. Wood, 685 A.2d 1173 (Me. 1996) (contract language viewed from insured’s perspective; ambiguities construed in insured’s favor)
- Jipson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2008 ME 57 (Me. 2008) (insurance contract interpretation; ambiguities favor insured)