Progressive Northwest Insurance Company v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company
2021 ME 54
| Me. | 2021Background
- On June 18, 2017, Vincent J. Micale Jr. rented two jet skis from Jet Ski Guy, Inc.; each jet ski was powered by a water jet pump engine of 125 horsepower.
- A collision between operators of the rented jet skis severely injured one person; Progressive (Micale’s watercraft insurer) ultimately paid $300,000 to settle claims against Micale.
- Metropolitan provided Micale’s homeowner policy, which generally excluded watercraft but contained an exception extending coverage in certain circumstances, including for rented watercraft with inboard or inboard-outdrive motors of 50 horsepower or less and stating "This includes watercraft propelled by a water jet pump engine or motor."
- Progressive sought declaratory relief after Metropolitan refused to indemnify one-half of the settlement, arguing the policy covered the rented jet skis; Metropolitan contended the 50-horsepower limit excluded coverage for the 125-hp jet skis.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Metropolitan, holding the policy unambiguous and that the 50-horsepower limitation applied to water jet pump engines; Progressive appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Metropolitan’s homeowner policy covers injuries from rented watercraft powered by water jet pump engines over 50 hp | Progressive: the policy is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that the 50-hp limit does not apply to water jet pump engines for rented watercraft, so coverage exists | Metropolitan: the policy unambiguously limits coverage for rented watercraft to motors of 50 hp or less, and the water-jet language is included within that limit, so no coverage | Court: policy unambiguous; 50-hp limitation applies to water jet pump engines for rented inboard/inboard-outdrive craft; no coverage |
| Whether the policy language is ambiguous such that contra proferentem or other interpretive rules should apply | Progressive: any ambiguity should be construed for coverage | Metropolitan: no ambiguity; plain meaning controls | Court: no ambiguity; interpret by plain meaning and resolve against Progressive |
Key Cases Cited
- InfoBridge, LLC v. Chimani, 228 A.3d 721 (Me. 2020) (framework for drawing undisputed facts on summary judgment)
- Kelley v. N. E. Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017) (de novo review of summary judgment and policy interpretation)
- Haskell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 236 A.3d 458 (Me. 2020) (ambiguous policy language construed against insurer and for insured)
- Jipson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 942 A.2d 1213 (Me. 2008) (policy must be read as a whole to determine ambiguity)
- Foundation for Blood Research v. St. Paul Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 730 A.2d 175 (Me. 1999) (examine entire policy to assess meaning)
- Cambridge Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Vallee, 687 A.2d 956 (Me. 1996) (policy language is ambiguous only if reasonably susceptible to different interpretations)
- Colford v. Chubb Life Ins. Co. of Am., 687 A.2d 609 (Me. 1996) (insured’s inability to understand a term does not alone create ambiguity)
- Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 634 A.2d 1312 (Me. 1993) (insurer bears burden to prove applicability of an exclusion)