Patrick Langevin v. Allstate Insurance Company
2013 ME 55
| Me. | 2013Background
- Langevins purchased 866 Cape Road property from Johnson for $315,000; Johnson had an Allstate homeowners policy.
- Langevins sued Johnson for negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for misrepresenting the property's condition and failure to disclose its junkyard history.
- Johnson's insurer Allstate refused to defend/indemnify under contract exclusion; Langevins settled underlying claims against Johnson for $330,000 under a judgment entered by the Cumberland County Superior Court.
- Langevins filed a reach and apply action under 24-A M.R.S. § 2904 to reach Allstate’s policy proceeds to satisfy the $330,000 judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Allstate, holding no covered property damage or bodily injury; Langevins appealed.
- Court held that damages for loss of investment and undisclosed physical property problems were not property damage and that emotional distress damages were not bodily injury under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of investment and undisclosed property problems in negligent misrepresentation are property damage | Langevins contend these damages are property damage under policy. | Allstate argues economic loss and preexisting physical issues are not property damage unless caused by an occurrence. | No; such damages are not property damage under the policy. |
| Whether emotional distress damages are bodily injury under the policy | Emotional distress may be bodily injury under policy definitions or by controlling case law. | Policy defines bodily injury as physical harm; emotional distress is not included. | No; emotional distress is not bodily injury under this policy. |
| Burden of proof in reach and apply actions and assignment of coverage | creditor bears burden to prove damages fall within policy. | insurer has duty to defend/indemnify if coverage exists; but here no assignment of insured status. | Court affirms that the creditor must prove damages fall within policy coverage; no cross-appeal issues alter burden here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobi v. MMG Ins. Co., 2011 ME 56 (Me. 2011) (burden on judgment creditor in reach and apply; policy interpretation framework)
- Sarah G. v. Me. Bonding & Cas. Co., 866 A.2d 835 (Me. 2005) (reach and apply applicability to recover insurance proceeds)
- Vigna v. Allstate Ins. Co., 686 A.2d 598 (Me. 1996) (economic injury not property damage; limits on coverage)
- Ryder v. USAA General Indemnity Co., 2007 ME 146 (Me. 2007) (bodily injury coverage depends on policy definition; emotional distress not automatically bodily injury)
- Bryant, 2012 ME 38 (Me. 2012) (policy language ambiguity and interpretation guiding bodily injury analysis)