68 A.3d 1242
Me.2012Background
- Collision between Linton (driving Jennings’s truck) and Carey; Carey died.
- Jennings’s insurer State Farm filed for declaratory judgment to determine coverage/defense.
- Trial court ruled Linton was not an insured; judgment for State Farm; estate appeals.
- Court held to vacate judgment, clarify burdens, remand for application of minor deviation rule.
- Jennings’s policy defines insured as any other person using the car within the scope of Jennings’s consent; Linton’s use included social/errand trips and drinking.
- Public policy shift: Maine now imposes universal financial responsibility; background statutory framework discussed (29-A M.R.S. §1601 et seq.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minor deviation rule remains viable after Maine’s financial-responsibility regime | Estate favors updating rule to reflect compulsory coverage. | Jennings argues minor deviation still governs scope of consent. | Court clarifies burden shift but does not adopt initial-permission rule. |
| Whether Linton’s use exceeded consent under Jennings’s policy | Estate contends social use/deviation breached scope of consent. | State Farm argues permitted scope sufficiently broad or that deviation exceeded it. | Remand required to apply clarified minor-deviation standard. |
| Whether alcohol use/illicit activity factors properly affect use versus operation under the omnibus clause | Estate contends alcohol consumption is not a determinant of use scope. | State Farm view could consider intoxication as part of operation scope. | Court erred by treating intoxication as controlling under 'use'; remand to reapply proper standard. |
| Whether Maine should adopt the initial-permit-rule instead of minor deviation rule | Silver concurrence advocates adoption; would simplify coverage. | Majority declines adoption; burden-shift approach retained without full adoption. | Majority declines adoption; concurrence separately urges adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. American Automobile Insurance Co., 131 Me. 288, 161 A. 496 (Me. 1932) (defining consent and minor deviation limits in initial permission framework)
- Savage v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 158 Me. 259, 182 A.2d 669 (Me. 1962) (adopted minor deviation rule in pre-insurance regime)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Lyons, 400 A.2d 349, 352-53 (Me. 1979) (distinguishing use vs. operation under permissive scope)
- Taylor v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 519 A.2d 182 (Me. 1986) (no dispute that operator’s use was a substantial deviation)
- Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 151 N.H. 649, 864 A.2d 368 (NH 2005) (advocates initial-permission rule; cited for policy rationale)
- Norton v. Lewis, 623 So.2d 874 (La. 1993) (policy rationale criticizing minor deviation rule)