236 A.3d 458
Me.2020Background
- In March 2013 Grover Bragg used his State Farm–insured pickup to drive an intoxicated, delusional passenger away from Bragg’s home; the passenger jumped out, then broke into Haskell and Witham’s home, damaged property, and assaulted Witham.
- Bragg was served with the plaintiffs’ negligence complaint, failed to timely answer, and a default was entered; State Farm later retained counsel to defend Bragg under a reservation of rights.
- At a damages hearing the court found Bragg and his passenger jointly and severally liable and awarded $428,071.64; that judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- Haskell and Witham sued State Farm in a reach-and-apply action seeking declaration and payment under Bragg’s automobile policy, which covered damages "caused by an accident that involves a vehicle."
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding the injuries/property damage were not "caused by an accident that involves a vehicle" because the tortious acts occurred after the passenger exited the vehicle.
- Haskell and Witham appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding there was no reasonable causal connection between the vehicle’s use and the injuries such that the policy coverage was triggered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the underlying default/judgment binds insurer on causation for coverage | Haskell/Witham: underlying judgment established Bragg caused their injuries, so coverage must apply | State Farm: duty to defend separate from duty to indemnify; policy terms control coverage and were reserved | Court: Insurer not bound to pay by tort judgment; policy language controls whether coverage exists |
| Whether damages were "caused by an accident that involves a vehicle" under the policy | Haskell/Witham: Bragg’s use of the truck to transport the passenger caused the injuries, so they fall within coverage | State Farm: passenger’s assault/property damage occurred after exiting; vehicle use was incidental and not the causative factor | Court: No reasonable causal connection between vehicle use and harms; coverage not triggered; summary judgment for State Farm affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Haskell v. Bragg, 167 A.3d 1246 (Me. 2017) (underlying judgment finding Bragg liable)
- Kelley v. N. E. Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017) (definition and limits of "auto accident" and causal connection)
- Elliott v. Hanover Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 1310 (Me. 1998) (duty to defend broader than duty to indemnify; policy controls indemnity)
- Me. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters Ins. Co., 677 A.2d 1073 (Me. 1996) (coverage where there is a "reasonable causal connection" between vehicle use and injury)
- Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 521 A.2d 308 (Me. 1987) (examples of sufficient causal connection to vehicle use)
- Foremost Ins. Co. v. Levesque, 868 A.2d 244 (Me. 2005) (injury not involving vehicle use falls outside vehicle-related exclusion)
- Worcester Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 555 A.2d 1050 (Me. 1989) (contrast where loading into open pickup was causally related)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 779 F.2d 984 (4th Cir. 1985) (passenger assaults outside vehicle generally not causally related to vehicle use)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 937 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1991) (vehicle as mere situs for tort does not trigger coverage)