Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bryant
2012 ME 38
| Me. | 2012Background
- Bryant, owner/employee of Prime Cut Meat Market, assaulted another motorist in a road-rage incident.
- Prime Cut and its employees were insured by a Travelers policy; Bryant sought indemnification under that policy.
- Incident occurred September 3, 2007 on Route 85; Bryant exited his own truck, which bore Prime Cut decals, and assaulted the other driver.
- Bryant’s vehicle and decals were not paid for or reimbursed by Prime Cut; the truck was registered in Bryant’s name.
- Latanowichs sued Bryant, Prime Cut, and Commerce Insurance; settlement assigned Bryant’s insurance rights to the Latanowiches.
- Travelers filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking to determine whether it had a duty to indemnify Bryant; the dispute focused on Bryant’s status under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bryant is insured as a partner under the policy | Bryant is a Prime Cut partner; acts were within business conduct. | Policy covers only conduct of the business, not all partner actions. | Not insured as a partner for this conduct. |
| Whether Bryant is insured as an employee for acts within scope of employment or related to business | Bryant acted during the course of business; his assault was related to Prime Cut’s conduct. | Assault was not within the scope of employment nor related to business conduct. | Not covered as employee. |
| Whether the assault occurred with respect to the conduct of Prime Cut’s business | The incident involved Prime Cut’s business and branding. | The act was personal and outside the conduct of the business. | Not within conduct of the business. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson, 958 A.2d 887 (2008 ME 166) (contract/coverage interpreted with respect to conduct of business)
- Pelkey v. Gen. Elec. Capital Assurance Co., 804 A.2d 385 (2002 ME 142) (ambiguity construed against insurer)
- City of S. Portland v. Me. Mun. Ass’n, 953 A.2d 1128 (2008 ME 128) (ambiguity in insurance coverage interpreted in insured’s favor)
- Mahar v. StoneWood Transp., 823 A.2d 540 (2003 ME 63) (scope of employment; acting for employer limits coverage)
- Cookson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 A.3d 1156 (2012 ME 7) (plain-language interpretation of insurance contracts)