[¶ 1] Steven G. Johnson and Roselle F. Johnson appeal from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Mills, J.) in favor of Arnica Mutual Insurance Company in the Johnsons’ suit alleging a duty to defend and indemnify them in connection with a third-party action brought against them. The Johnsons’ contentions lack merit. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] The parties dispute the scope of coverage provided under a homeowners insurance policy that Arnica issued to the Johnsons. Vincent Herzog brought a suit against the Johnsons during the policy period, alleging that they converted bank account funds and reimbursement payments. Arnica refused to defend and indemnify the Johnsons in the Herzog suit, based on the policy’s coverage provisions and exclusion provisions. The Johnsons brought suit against Arnica seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that Arnica had the duty to defend and indemnify them in the Herzog suit. Arnica moved for a summary judgment on the basis that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Johnsons under the policy. On the day after the court heard oral argument from the parties on Arnica’s motion, Arnica submitted a letter and copies of three cases supporting its position that the alleged conversion was “strictly an economic loss” that did not qualify as “property damage” under the policy. The Johnsons filed a written objection to Arnica’s post-hearing submission on the grounds that: (1) the submission was “an affront to the finality of the pleading steps outlined in Rule 7”; and (2) the cases were “of doubtful relevance.” The court acknowledged receipt of Arnica’s submission and the Johnsons’ objection thereto, and offered the John-sons an opportunity to respond. The Johnsons declined to respond and, instead, asked the trial justice to: (1) strike the new cases from the record; (2) recuse herself; and (3) refer the matter to another judge. The trial justice denied the Johnsons’ request that she recuse herself, and entered a judgment in favor of Arnica. This appeal followed.
I.
[¶ 3] Although the Johnsons claim they are entitled to a defense and indemnification, their claim has no basis, either in law or in fact. The relevant coverage provision provides: “If a ... suit is brought against any insured for damages because of ... bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, we will ... [p]ay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable ... and ... [p]rovide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice .... ” The policy defines the term “occurrence” as an “accident ... which results, during the policy period, in [bjodily injury [or] [pjroperty damage.” The policy defines the term “property damage” as “physical injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of tangible property.”
[¶ 4] Contrary to the Johnsons’ contention, the allegedly converted bank account funds constitute intangible, rather than tangible, property. According to Blaok’s Law DiCtionary 809, 1456 (6th ed.l990):(l) “tangible property” is property with “physical form and substance” that “may be felt or touched, and is necessarily corporeal, although it may be either real or personal”; and (2) “intangible property” is property that has “no intrinsic and marketable value, but is merely the represen
*979
tative or evidence of value, such as certificates of stock, bonds, promissory notes, copyrights, and franchises.” Bank account funds are not “tangible property,” because they have no physical presence. Rather, bank account funds are “intangible property,” because they have no intrinsic value and merely represent, or are evidence of, value. Other courts have similarly concluded that bank account funds constitute intangible property.
See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Russo,
[¶ 5] The alleged conversion of reimbursement payments in this case would have resulted in an intangible economic loss, rather than a “loss of use of tangible property.” Granted, money
(i.e.,
the currency itself) may constitute tangible property.
See, e.g., Coulter v. CIGNA Property & Cas. Cos.,
[¶ 6] Even if the Herzog suit fell within the scope of the policy’s liability coverage, exclusion 1(b) applies. That exclusion provides that the coverage does not apply to “bodily injury or property damage ... [a]rising out of or in connection with a business engaged in by an insured.” Under the policy, “ ‘[business’ includes trade, profession or occupation.” Clearly, any alleged bodily injury or property damage arose out of and in connection with the Johnsons’ trade, profession, or occupation. *980 Therefore, exclusion 1(b) specifically precludes coverage for defense and indemnification in the Herzog suit.
[¶ 7] The general allegations in Her-zog’s complaint give rise to no set of facts that would establish coverage under the policy.
See Maine Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gervais,
II.
[¶ 8] Without citing any relevant or binding precedent, the Johnsons also contend that the trial court erred in considering Arnica’s post-hearing submission of case law. Although the Johnsons refer vaguely to Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and 15(d) in support of their argument, they fail to point to any specific language that would preclude Arnica from submitting cases after a hearing on motions for a summary judgment. It is solely within the court’s discretion to decide whether to accept and review additional authorities provided after oral argument. In most circumstances, no reply to such a submission is even necessary since the authorities submitted are likely to have been discussed at argument. At most, the opposing party may be given an opportunity to respond. The court did exactly that here.
[¶ 9] Even if the Johnsons could point to some error in the court’s action, the Johnsons are not entitled to any remedy. The Johnsons ask us to vacate the summary judgment and remand the case for a rehearing on the very issue of law now before us (i.e., whether Amica has a duty to defend the Johnsons in the Herzog suit). The Johnsons maintain that both parties “are entitled to a final decision on their motions [for a summary judgment] in the Superior Court and to de novo review of that decision in [the Law Court].” The Johnsons contend that our de novo review of the issue of law is an inadequate substitute for a de novo hearing in the Superior Court because “[a]n initial decision on the merits in the Law Court would deny both parties the right to appeal.” The John-sons’ contention is utterly devoid of merit and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of de novo review, as well as an apparent disregard for the conservation of scarce judicial resources.
III.
[¶ 10] The Johnsons further contend that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to recuse, because they claim that the justice reached her decision based on Arnica’s post-hearing argument and “it is not reasonable to ask her to excise the evil thoughts from her mind and reach a new decision on the merits uninfluenced by her previous action and free of any conscious or subconscious need to validate her previous action.” They erroneously assert that they are “entitled to recusal if any reasonable person would be concerned about the impartiality of the Court.”
[¶ 11] “Recusal is a matter within the broad discretion of the trial court.”
Estate of Dineen,
IV.
[¶ 12] The Johnsons’ post-hearing actions in the trial court display disrespect for the court, and their appeal from the court’s refusal to recuse itself is an insult to the appellate process. We cannot tolerate such abusive consumption of the court system’s limited resources by litigants who choose to litigate baseless suits and to present meritless issues on appeal. We, therefore, impose sanctions on the John-sons and their counsel in the amount of $1,000 to be paid to the defendant as partial reimbursement for its expenses in the defense of the Johnsons’ actions.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed with sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel in the amount of $1,000.
Notes
. Rather, the Johnsons claim to believe there is a "reasonable possibility that they will not receive a completely impartial hearing before Justice Mills.” However, the mere belief that a judge might not be "completely impartial” is insufficient to warrant a recusal if the judge believes she can act with complete impartiality.
See
Maine Code of Jud. Conduct Canon 3(E);
State v. Rameau,