Peerless Indemnity Insurance C v. Frost
723 F.3d 12
1st Cir.2013Background
- Frost, a podiatrist and Lake Region’s sole stockholder, was injured in a May 25, 2007 accident while driving a car owned by her husband.
- Lake Region had two Peerless policies (business owner’s and umbrella) that provided liability coverage and excess/umbrella limits, but excluded auto liability for autos owned by Frost’s family; the hired/non-owned auto endorsement altered that exclusion only to the extent stated.
- AIU insured the tortfeasor and paid Frost the remaining liability limits after settlement; Progressive paid Frost underinsured motorist coverage to the policy maximum after offsetting the AIU payment.
- Frost sought UM/UIM coverage under Lake Region’s Peerless policies, arguing Maine’s UM/UIM statute applies and requires broader coverage.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Peerless, holding that Maine’s UM/UIM statute § 2902 does not apply to the Peerless policies because they are not “motor vehicle” policies issued for vehicles registered or garaged in Maine.
- Frost appeals challenging the court’s interpretation of § 2902 and its application to commercial general liability policies like Lake Region’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Maine's uninsured/underinsured motorist statute § 2902 apply to Peerless policies issued to Lake Region? | Frost argues § 2902 should apply to provide UM/UIM coverage. | Peerless contends § 2902 does not apply to these policies. | No; § 2902 does not apply to Peerless policies. |
| Are Lake Region’s Peerless policies “motor vehicle insurance policies” under § 2902? | Policies should be read to provide UM/UIM as options for insureds. | Policies are not “motor vehicle” policies issued for vehicles registered/garaged in Maine. | Not applicable; § 2902 does not cover these policies. |
| If § 2902 applies, would Frost be entitled to UM/UIM benefits from Peerless? | If applicable, Frost would receive UM/UIM up to policy limits. | Even if § 2902 applied, the policies’ terms and endorsements limit or exclude such coverage. | Irrelevant to the holding because § 2902 does not apply. |
| How does the owned-but-not-insured rule affect Frost’s UM/UIM claim here? |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (UM protections construed liberally in favor of insureds)
- Wescott v. Allstate Ins., 397 A.2d 156 (Me. 1979) (UM statute's purpose to protect insureds)
- Connolly v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 932 (Me. 1983) (Legislative history of UM coverage)
- Molleur v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 942 A.2d 1197 (Me. 2008) (Statutory interpretation of UM coverage scope)
- Dufour v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 438 A.2d 1290 (Me. 1982) (UM policy requirements in Maine)
- Langley v. Home Indem. Co., 272 A.2d 740 (Me. 1971) (UM statute applies to automobile liability contracts)
- Skidgell v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 697 A.2d 831 (Me. 1997) (UM coverage extending to non-vehicle insureds)