Plaintiffs Home Insurance Co. (Home) and Stacey Shibles appeal the summary judgmеnt entered by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Fritzsche, J.) in favor of defendant Horacе Mann Insurance Co. (Horace Mann) in Home’s action to recover uninsured motorist benefits as assignee of Stacey Shibles. The Superior Court ruled that thе present action against Horace Mann is barred because of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with notice requirements of Horace Mann’s pоlicy. We affirm the summary judgment.
Stacey Shibles, a student from Connecticut attending the University of Maine in Orono, suffered severe personal injuries in an accident оn April 22, 1986, while she was riding on a motorcycle owned and operated by John McCall, an uninsured motorist. Shibles filed a complaint in the federal district court in Mainе seeking tort damages from McCall and uninsured motorist benefits from her parents’ automobile insurance carriers, Home and the Insurance Company of North American (INA). In December 1988, prior to trial, Home entered into a settlement agreement with Shibles providing for a structured award to her of $346,731. INA later paid Home $50,000 for a release of Home’s claim of contribution against INA.
In April 1989, somе three years after the accident and four months after Home settled with Shibles, its attorney wrote to Horace Mann demanding indemnification for Home’s payment to Shibles. That letter was Horace Mann’s first notice of Shibles’ acсident. Subsequently Home and Shibles commenced the present action agаinst Horace Mann. The basis of their action is that Shibles’ grandmother, with whom Shibles was temporarily residing in Orono at the time of the accident, had an automobilе insurance policy with Horace Mann that provided for uninsured motorist coverage for “family members.”
*861 The record clearly shows that Shibles and Home failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Horace Mann pоlicy. That policy required (1) that Horace Mann be given notice of an accident as soon as reasonably possible and also be given copies of all suit papers in any action brought against a person liablе for damages, and further (2) that its consent be sought for any settlement. At no time did Shibles nоtify Horace Mann of the accident; the first notice it got came from Home’s attorney about three years after the accident. Neither did Horace Mann receive any notice of Shibles’ lawsuit against McCall, Home, and INA, or of the settlement agreements between Home and Shibles and betweеn Home and INA.
Home contends that Horace Mann must show that it has been prejudiced by Shi-bles’ and Home’s failure to comply with Horace Mann’s notice requirements. Assuming, without deciding, that Home is right in that contention, Home nonetheless doеs not establish that there is any genuine issue of material fact on the question оf prejudice to Horace Mann. Home has presented no sworn evidеnce to contradict the evidence of prejudice from the latе notice presented by Horace Mann in support of its motion for summary judgmеnt. Home “has not set forth by affidavit, deposition, or other sworn evidence аny ‘specific facts showing there is a genuine issue’ ” on the prejudice questiоn.
Dugan v. Martel,
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.