James M. Dickau v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co.
107 A.3d 621
Me.2014Background
- In June 2011 James M. Dickau was injured in Maine when a third party (Irida Macomber) caused a motorcycle collision; Dickau’s damages exceeded $250,000.
- At the time Dickau had (1) a Dairyland motorcycle policy with $250,000 UM/UIM coverage and (2) a Vermont Mutual personal umbrella policy with $1,000,000 limit that required certain primary insurance be maintained.
- Macomber’s liability insurer (Travelers) paid its $100,000 policy limit; Dairyland paid $150,000 in UM/UIM (its $250,000 limit reduced by Travelers’ $100,000). Dickau exhausted Dairyland coverage.
- Dickau sued Vermont Mutual seeking a declaratory judgment that his umbrella policy provides UM/UIM coverage up to $1,000,000 (or that Maine statute 24-A M.R.S. § 2902 requires such coverage).
- Parties submitted stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment; Superior Court granted Vermont Mutual’s motion. On appeal, the Law Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the umbrella policy’s language provides UM/UIM coverage | Dickau: policy’s declarations and requirement to maintain UM in primary imply umbrella covers UM personal-injury up to $1M | Vermont Mutual: policy unambiguously excludes UM personal-injury and is a liability-only umbrella that does not provide first-party UM benefits | Court: policy language is unambiguous — no UM personal-injury coverage in the umbrella; summary judgment for insurer |
| Whether § 2902’s UM requirements apply by operation of law to umbrella policies | Dickau: § 2902 should be read to include any policy that insures liability arising out of motor vehicle use, including umbrellas linked to a primary policy | Vermont Mutual: § 2902 targets motor vehicle insurance policies (primary vehicle-specific policies); umbrellas are voluntary, distinct, and not within statute’s scope | Court: § 2902 does not apply to umbrella policies; umbrellas are not "motor vehicle insurance policies" under statute |
| Whether to adopt a minimum-recovery vs. full-recovery distinction for umbrellas | Dickau: full-recovery logic would support applying § 2902 to umbrella limits | Vermont Mutual: statutory history and nature of umbrellas counsel against applying full-recovery expansion to umbrellas | Court: rejects the minimum/full-recovery distinction as dispositive; legislative history shows scope of § 2902 remained tied to motor vehicle policies and not expanded to umbrellas |
| Whether public-policy or remedial-construction rules require a liberal reading in favor of insureds to bring umbrellas within § 2902 | Dickau: remedial nature of UM statute requires liberal construction to effectuate full compensation | Vermont Mutual: liberal construction cannot rewrite statute to attach mandatory coverage to voluntary umbrella products | Court: acknowledges remedial purpose but concludes statutory text, structure, history, and commercial realities support limiting § 2902 to primary motor-vehicle policies |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (describing UM coverage purpose and remedial construction in Maine)
- Globe Indem. Co. v. Jordan, 634 A.2d 1279 (Me. 1993) (distinguishing primary/underlying policies from voluntary excess/umbrella coverage)
- Peerless Indem. Ins. Co. v. Frost, 723 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (predicting Maine Law Court would limit § 2902 to primary motor-vehicle policies)
- Apodaca v. Allstate Ins. Co., 255 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2011) (umbrella policies are distinct from automobile liability policies for UM purposes)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. McLaughlin, 590 N.E.2d 679 (Mass. 1992) (Massachusetts court holds UM statute does not convert umbrella into auto-liability policy)
- Rowe v. Travelers Indem. Co., 800 P.2d 157 (Mont. 1990) (refusing to treat excess/umbrella policies as subject to UM statutes meant for primary policies)
- Moser v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 406 (Okla. 1986) (UM statutes limited to policies insuring primary liability; excess coverage outside statute)