Estate of Rebecca L. Mason v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company
2017 ME 58
| Me. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 7, 2012, Kristina Lowe negligently crashed a vehicle owned by Dakota Larson; passengers Rebecca Mason and Logan Dam died and the Estates obtained $1,000,000 judgments against Lowe.
- Lowe had been using Larson’s car after her own car broke down in late Dec. 2011; Larson gave her the only set of keys and authorized use while he was away and thereafter.
- Lowe used Larson’s car for work and personal errands, kept it at her family home, and usually paid for gas; she also gave Larson rides as part of their arrangement.
- The car was driven by Lowe while she was a resident of Melissa Stanley’s household; Stanley had an Amica liability policy ( $300,000 ) that excluded vehicles “furnished for the regular use of any family member.”
- The Estates filed reach-and-apply actions seeking to apply Stanley’s policy to satisfy the judgments; the Superior Court granted summary judgment to Amica, finding the policy’s "regular use" exclusion applied.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding Lowe’s use of Larson’s car was "regular use," barring coverage under Stanley’s policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stanley’s policy exclusion for vehicles “furnished for the regular use of any family member” precludes coverage for Lowe’s negligent use of Larson’s car | Lowe’s use was temporary and incidental after her car broke down, so the exclusion does not apply | Lowe had the right and opportunity to use Larson’s car as her own (keys, kept at her home, used for daily needs), so the exclusion bars coverage | Exclusion applies; Lowe’s use was "regular use," so Amica not liable |
| Whether the duration (about two weeks) of use precludes finding "regular use" | Short duration means use cannot be "regular" | Temporary length does not preclude regular use if the nature of use is habitual and unrestricted | Duration not dispositive; nature and extent of use control; exclusion can apply even for short but habitual use |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 263 A.2d 78 (Me. 1970) (defines and applies "regular use" exclusion; focuses on right and opportunity to use as dispositive)
- Acadia Ins. Co. v. Mascis, 776 A.2d 617 (Me. 2001) (distinguishes situations where restricted access and lack of possession weigh against finding "regular use")
- Pease v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 931 A.2d 1072 (Me. 2007) (principle that exclusions are construed strictly against insurer; interpretation of exclusions is a question of law)