Kelley v. North East Insurance Co., 168 A.3d 779

Teresa Snyder was the named insured on an auto policy issued by North East Insurance; her 1999 Ford Mustang was the covered auto.
Tim McCann drove his employer’s car with a dog inside; during a transfer of a pickup truck, someone opened the car door and the dog bit Richardie Kelley in the face while remaining inside the car.
Kelley sued Snyder and McCann; North East declined to defend or indemnify Snyder, and the parties stipulated to a $100,000 judgment against Snyder.
Kelley brought a reach-and-apply action under 24-A M.R.S. § 2904 seeking to satisfy that judgment from Snyder’s auto policy.
The trial court granted summary judgment for North East, finding Kelley’s injury did not arise from an “auto accident” under the policy and Snyder was not an insured for this claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kelley’s dog-bite injury "arose from an auto accident" under the policy	The bite occurred in/near a vehicle and thus arose from the use of an automobile, so it fits within "auto accident" coverage	The bite was unrelated to any operation or causal use of the vehicle and thus not an "auto accident"	Court held the bite did not qualify as an "auto accident"; coverage does not extend to this event
Whether policy language should be construed in favor of the insured	Policy ambiguous; interpret liberally for Kelley	Policy language is unambiguous and should be given its plain meaning	Court held language unambiguous and applied plain meaning, not pro-insured construction
Whether Union Mutual controls to extend coverage for injuries "from use" of a vehicle	Union Mutual interpreted similar "use" language to find coverage; thus Kelley’s claim should be covered	Union Mutual addressed a different clause and is inapposite here	Court held Union Mutual is not controlling because it addressed the "use" clause, not "auto accident" clause
Whether Snyder was an "insured" for this incident under the policy	(Argued by Kelley) Snyder should be an insured for this accident	(North East) Snyder was not an insured for this event	Court found Kelley’s contention Snyder was an insured unpersuasive and declined to adopt it

Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 59 A.3d 1280 (Me. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment and policy interpretation)
Langevin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 66 A.3d 585 (Me. 2013) (framework for reach-and-apply: identify underlying liability then compare to policy coverage)
Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 521 A.2d 308 (Me. 1987) (distinguished; addressed "use" clause rather than "auto accident")
Cookson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 A.3d 1156 (Me. 2012) (unambiguous policy language is given its plain meaning)
Patrick v. J. B. Ham Co., 111 A. 912 (Me. 1921) (definition and understanding of "accident")

Judgment affirmed.