Kelley v. North East Insurance Co.
168 A.3d 779
| Me. | 2017Background
- Teresa Snyder was the named insured on a North East auto policy covering a 1999 Ford Mustang; Snyder was not present at the incident.
- Tim McCann drove an employer’s car with a dog (co-owned with Snyder) to meet Kelley; during a transfer the dog bit Kelley in the face while inside the car.
- Kelley sued Snyder and McCann; North East declined to defend or indemnify Snyder; the parties stipulated to a $100,000 judgment against Snyder.
- Kelley filed a reach-and-apply action under 24-A M.R.S. § 2904 to satisfy her judgment from Snyder’s auto policy.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to North East, concluding Kelley’s injury did not arise from an “auto accident” under the policy; Kelley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelley’s injury is covered because it "arose from an auto accident" under the policy | The dog bite occurred in/near a vehicle and thus arose from use of the vehicle and qualifies as an "auto accident" | "Auto accident" requires an unintended injurious occurrence involving the automobile; this bite had no causal connection to operation/use of the covered auto | Court held "auto accident" unambiguously means an unintended injurious occurrence involving an automobile; the dog bite lacked sufficient connection and is not covered |
| Whether policy language should be construed for the insured | Kelley urged liberal construction for insured | North East argued plain meaning controls where policy language is unambiguous | Court reiterated ambiguous language is construed for insured; where unambiguous, plain meaning governs; here language unambiguous in context |
| Whether Union Mutual controls to treat injuries arising from "use" of a vehicle as covered | Kelley relied on Union Mutual to argue "use" language supports coverage | North East noted Union Mutual answered certified questions about "use" and did not decide the separate "auto accident" clause | Court held Union Mutual is inapposite because it addressed a different clause and did not resolve the "auto accident" question |
| Burden to show damages fall within policy coverage in reach-and-apply action | Kelley must show that the underlying judgment arises from a claim covered by the policy | North East asserts Kelley bears the burden and failed to meet it | Court affirmed Kelley bears burden and failed to show coverage; summary judgment for North East affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- 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) (reach-and-apply review framework and burden on claimant)
- Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 521 A.2d 308 (Me. 1987) (addressed "use" clause; not dispositive on "auto accident" clause)
- Cookson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 A.3d 1156 (Me. 2012) (unambiguous policy language interpreted by plain meaning)
- Patrick v. J. B. Ham Co., 111 A. 912 (Me. 1921) (definition/discussion of "accident")
Judgment affirmed.