264 A.3d 1248
Me.2021Background
- Yankee Pride, a long‑distance freight hauler, retained UIG (an independent insurance agency) to handle its commercial insurance renewals from 2012 onward.
- Great West, the incumbent carrier, sent a notice of nonrenewal in February 2018 (for a policy expiring December 27, 2018); UIG did not deliver that notice to Yankee Pride and the parties dispute when Yankee Pride learned of it.
- UIG employee Karie Michaud attempted to renew and began searching for alternative coverage in mid‑December 2018; she spoke to the Great West underwriter around December 21, 2018, and Yankee Pride’s policy lapsed on December 27, 2018.
- After the lapse, UIG identified an assigned‑risk option (January 2, 2019) which Yankee Pride’s owner declined as too costly; another insurer eventually issued a limited policy later in January.
- Yankee Pride lost a major client (Huber) because it could not produce proof of insurance, sued UIG for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, and the trial court granted summary judgment for UIG. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding Yankee Pride failed to show causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — failure to renew | UIG had an implied contract to facilitate timely renewals; its late efforts breached that contract | Even if breached, Yankee Pride produced no evidence UIG could have obtained acceptable coverage before 12/27/2018 | Summary judgment affirmed — no competent evidence of proximate causation |
| Negligence — untimely search / inadequate advice | UIG negligently delayed shopping for replacement coverage and failed to explain assigned‑risk option | Duty existed but plaintiff cannot show that earlier/different conduct would have avoided the loss | Summary judgment affirmed — causation lacking; timeliness may be disputed but no proof of loss avoidance |
| Breach of fiduciary duty — special relationship | UIG occupied a trusted position and thus owed fiduciary duties | No evidence of the requisite trust/disparity to create a fiduciary relationship; alternatively causation fails | Summary judgment affirmed — no fiduciary relationship shown and causation independent failure |
| Causation (proximate cause) | Yankee Pride contends earlier diligence would have produced acceptable coverage and prevented loss of client | No evidence identifying an insurer who would have provided adequate, affordable coverage before policy lapsed; owner’s own searches were unsuccessful | Central holding: plaintiff failed to adduce competent evidence that UIG’s conduct proximately caused the loss, so all claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, 140 A.3d 1242 (Me. 2016) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Me. Energy Recovery Co. v. United Steel Structures, Inc., 724 A.2d 1248 (Me. 1999) (elements of breach of contract include proximate causation)
- Szelenyi v. Morse, Payson & Noyes Ins., 594 A.2d 1092 (Me. 1991) (insurer/agent duties to insured explained)
- Est. of Smith v. Salvesen, 143 A.3d 780 (Me. 2016) (plaintiff must produce prima facie evidence of each element at summary judgment; causation standards)
- Murdock v. Thorne, 166 A.3d 119 (Me. 2017) (elements of negligence include duty, breach, causation, and damages)
- Niehoff v. Shankman & Assocs., 763 A.2d 121 (Me. 2000) (causation rules apply equally to contract, tort, and fiduciary claims)