Janet Howe v. MMG Insurance Company
2014 ME 78
Me.2014Background
- Janet Howe, owner of a condominium unit at River Knoll Farms, was sued by the Condominium Association for nuisance, negligence, and violation of 7 M.R.S. § 3952 based on the conduct of her dog.
- The Association’s complaint alleges the dog is vicious, has bitten people, and interfered with neighbors’ property and rights; it requests injunctive relief and also seeks "damages, interest, penalties, costs, and [attorney] fees."
- Howe tendered defense to her homeowner insurer, MMG Insurance Company, which declined, asserting the complaint sought only equitable relief (injunctive) and alleged no covered "bodily injury" or "property damage."
- Howe sued MMG for declaratory relief; after pleadings closed she moved for judgment on the pleadings under M.R. Civ. P. 12(c).
- The Superior Court ruled for MMG, finding the nuisance claim sought only injunctive relief, the negligence count failed to allege bodily injury or property damage, and no private right of action exists under § 3952.
- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the complaint — read broadly under Maine’s notice-pleading standard and in conjunction with the policy — revealed a potential for facts that would fall within policy coverage and therefore MMG has a duty to defend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMG has a duty to defend Howe | Howe: complaint alleges facts (bites, threats, interference, requests for damages) that could show bodily injury or property damage, so defense duty is triggered | MMG: complaint seeks only equitable relief for nuisance and alleges no bodily injury or property damage, so policy coverage is not implicated | Duty to defend exists because complaint, read with policy and liberal notice pleading, reveals potential covered claims |
| Proper standard for duty-to-defend on a Rule 12(c) motion | Howe: apply broad duty-to-defend standard; potential coverage sufficient | MMG: focus on pleaded relief and lack of explicit covered damages | Court: review de novo; duty triggers on any potential that proven facts could fall within coverage, even if claim may not survive dismissal |
| Whether nuisance claim is exclusively equitable and thus not covered | Howe: complaint also demands monetary damages and alleges facts that could support property damage | MMG: nuisance count requests injunctive relief and therefore not covered under policy | Court: nuisance count requests damages and factual allegations could support property damage, so coverage potential exists |
| Whether negligence and statutory counts fail to allege covered harm | Howe: allegations (dog has bitten people) could establish bodily injury and covered negligence liability | MMG: negligence count lacks allegation of bodily injury/property damage; § 3952 provides no private right of action | Court: factual allegations could support bodily injury; whether statutory private cause exists not decided — duty to defend nonetheless required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 A.3d 876 (interpreting insurer’s duty to defend and resolving policy ambiguities against insurer)
- Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 59 A.3d 1280 (duty to defend triggered by any potential that complaint’s facts could fall within coverage)
- Burns v. Architectural Doors & Windows, 19 A.3d 823 (explaining Maine’s notice-pleading standard and its forgiving nature)
- Johnston v. Me. Energy Recovery Co., Ltd. P’ship, 997 A.2d 741 (noting Maine is a notice-pleading state)