Estate of Mason v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., 158 A.3d 495

On Jan. 7, 2012, Kristina Lowe negligently crashed a vehicle owned by Dakota Larson; passengers Rebecca Mason and Logan Dam died. Lowe had been driving Larson’s car after her own car broke down in late Dec. 2011.
Larson gave Lowe the only set of keys and authorized her to use his car as if it were her own while he was away; Lowe used it for daily needs (work, errands, gym, visiting friends) and usually paid for gas.
Lowe was living with Melissa Stanley at the time; Stanley had a personal auto policy with Arnica Mutual insuring $300,000 liability but excluding vehicles “furnished for the regular use of any family member.” Lowe qualified as a “family member.”
The Estates obtained $1,000,000 judgments against Lowe in wrongful-death actions and then brought reach-and-apply actions against Arnica under 24-A M.R.S. § 2904 seeking Stanley’s policy proceeds.
The Superior Court granted Arnica summary judgment, concluding the policy’s “regular use” exclusion barred coverage for Lowe’s use of Larson’s car; the Estates appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the vehicle Lowe was driving was "furnished for [her] regular use" so as to trigger the policy exclusion	Lowe’s use was temporary (≈two weeks) and intended to benefit Larson; therefore it was occasional, not "regular," so exclusion does not apply	Lowe had blanket, unrestricted use (only keys, kept car at her home, used for daily transportation and paid gas), so use was "regular" and exclusion applies	Exclusion applies; Lowe’s use was regular despite short duration, so Arnica not liable

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 263 A.2d 78 (Me. 1970) (regular-use exclusion applies where user has the right and opportunity to use a car as his own)
Acadia Ins. Co. v. Mascis, 776 A.2d 617 (Me. 2001) (regular-use exclusion does not apply where user’s access is strictly limited, vehicle not left in possession, no keys)
Pease v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 931 A.2d 1072 (Me. 2007) (interpretation of insurance exclusion is a question of law; exclusions construed narrowly against insurer)
Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Franklin, 147 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 1998) (temporary duration does not preclude finding of regular use where access is unrestricted)
Volpe v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 802 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) (policy exclusion prevents insurer from being exposed to unlimited nonowned vehicles covered at single-car premium)