Estate of Paul R. Galipeau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 132 A.3d 1190

Paul R. Galipeau was killed while riding his motorcycle; his Estate settled the tortfeasor's liability for $50,000 (the tortfeasor policy limit).
Galipeau and his wife were insured under four separate State Farm vehicle policies (one motorcycle policy and three automobile policies), each providing $100,000 per-person UM coverage on its declarations page for the vehicle listed on that policy.
The Estate demanded the aggregate UM limits ($400,000) less the $50,000 recovered from the tortfeasor ($350,000); State Farm paid only the $50,000 difference between the motorcycle policy UM limit and the tortfeasor recovery and refused further payment.
Each policy contained an "other‑owned‑vehicle" exclusion (Forms 9819A or 9819B) that precluded UM coverage for an insured injured while occupying a vehicle not listed as "your car" (or not insured for this coverage under that policy); Form 9819B also included an anti‑stacking provision.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding the other‑owned‑vehicle exclusion precluded coverage under the three non‑motorcycle policies; the court did not decide the anti‑stacking provision issue.
The Estate appealed, arguing the exclusion violates Maine's UM statute and that separate premiums for each policy require stacking of UM limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of other‑owned‑vehicle exclusions under Maine UM statute	Other‑owned‑vehicle exclusions violate 24‑A M.R.S. § 2902 and should be invalidated	Exclusions are valid under Maine precedent and enforceable	Court upheld exclusions based on long‑standing Maine precedent; declined to overturn it
Application of the exclusion to these policies/facts	Payment of premiums on each policy means UM coverage should apply across all policies	Policies' exclusions unambiguously exclude coverage for the motorcycle under the three auto policies because the motorcycle was not listed on those declarations	Exclusion applied; non‑motorcycle policies did not cover the motorcycle accident
Effect of separate premiums (stacking)	Paying separate premiums for each policy entitles Estate to stack UM limits	No stacking where contractually excluded; prior Maine cases refuse stacking in similar circumstances	Court followed Gross and related precedent: separate premiums do not compel stacking when policies/exclusions are clear
Anti‑stacking clause in Form 9819B	Clause ineffective / not applicable	Clause prevents stacking of UM limits	Court did not reach this issue because it resolved the case on the other‑owned‑vehicle exclusion

Estate of Lewis v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 87 A.3d 732 (reaffirming validity of other‑owned‑vehicle exclusions under Maine law)
Hall v. Patriot Mut. Ins. Co., 942 A.2d 663 (endorsing enforcement of exclusion as plainly applicable)
Gross v. Green Mountain Ins. Co., 506 A.2d 1139 (refusing stacking despite separate premiums; analogous facts)
Cash v. Green Mountain Ins. Co., 644 A.2d 456 (supports validity of exclusions under Maine precedent)
Bear v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 519 A.2d 180 (earlier Maine decision upholding similar exclusion)
Hare v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 471 A.2d 1041 (prior Maine authority on UM coverage interpretation)

Judgment affirmed.