*1 Barry A. Blue disregard White Alliance client’s instruction or their Co., Portland, cor- Ins. for defendant. assignment. The District Court Mut. valid assignment is val- rectly concluded that the against Irace and Low- id and enforceable WATHEN,* GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD ry- BRODY, JJ. judgment of the Roger Ray appeals concurring.
All Cole, (Cumberland County, Supеrior Court J.) reversing of the District a decision (Portland, Goranites, J.) Ray that Court wife, deceased, were entitled and his now to insurance benefits they had treatments under the contract defendant, Mutual Blue Alliance (BAMICO). Because Insurance Roger B. RAY not agree that contraсt could we acu- require payment construed treatments, we affirm. BLUE ALLIANCE MUTUAL from osteoar- Ray and his wife suffered COMPANY. INSURANCE treat- They a series of thritis. reсeived Supreme Judicial Court phy- from licensed ments for their arthritis years. period of sicians in Maine for a Having no relief from convеntion- obtained Aug. Decided through sought relief therapy, Rays al Although a medi- acupuncture treatments. recommended that at least сal doctor treatment, should receive such a medical acupuncturist they saw was not doctor. claims with Rays filed insurance serviсes ren- seeking payment
BAMICO BAMICO re- acupuncturist. dered sponded that felt that the services claims. “experimental” and denied the lettеr, also stated In a second BAMICO “to doctors of licensed operating dentistry, podiatry, optometry licenses.” The of their within against Rаys then obtained major medical under their BAMICO appealed in small claims court. on the to the the decision contract did not ground thе insurance acupuncture treat- provide coverage for determined ments. The unambiguously that the contract coveragе. acupuncture from Ray (orally), pro se. excluded Roger B. * Wathen, J., participate argument further. but did not sat at oral
mi pertinent case con- only issue this policy issued to cerns the of the insur- Rays. Only the two sections of the control our decision.1 The
ance cоntract
GLASSMAN,
section entitled
Ser-
first relevant
“Covered
BRODY, JJ., concur.
CLIFFORD and
vices,”
plan
the
describes services that
cov-
Justice,
COLLINS,
dissenting.
that:
ers and includes the statement
respectfully
I
dissent.
policy
by physicians.
This
covers services
directly
review
the decision of the
We
policy, physician
means
Under this
Court,
sitting
here
as the Small
District
licensed doctors of
City
Claims Court.
Portland v.
dentistry, podiatry
optometry operat-
Cf.
of
Concerts, Inc.,
180,
A.2d
181
481
Gemini
ing
within the
of their licenses.
(Me.1984).
I cannot conclude on
Because
The other relevant section of the insurаnce
misap-
that the District Court
this record
services,
contract enumerates a number of
law,1
plied
I
the
the
would vacate
procedures
policy
and situations that the
the
Court’s decision and reinstate
specifically
does not cover. It
states that:
Rays.
in favor of the
policy provides
only
This
for the
obligated
The Small Claims Court was
supplies specified
only
services and
policy
of the
сonstrue the terms
insurance
to the extent described. All other servic-
law,
any
a matter of
and to construe
as
supplies
es and
arе excluded from cover-
ambiguities strictly against
the insurer.
age.
Baybutt
v.
See
Constr. Co. Commercial
acupuncture
specif-
Because
is not included
Co.,
(Me.
455 A.2d
921
Union Ins.
ically in
policy,
these sections of the
1983). Here, although
policy
acupuncture.
excludes
coverage
provided by physic
to services
past
In the
we have made clear that we
ians,2 it also states that it covers “medical
exceptions
“will construe conditions and
of
admissions,
hospital
ly necessary
health
strictly against
the insurance contract ...
services, suрplies,
equipment.”
care
liberally
the insurer and
favor of
added.)
(Emphasis
insured.”
Mutual Insur-
Patrons-Oxford
hearing
At the
before the Small Claims
Dodge,
ance
against the insurer and favor
age treatments. *3 OF M. David HAYNES.
ESTATE Robert Woodman Woodman Supreme Judicial Court Edmands, Biddeford, appellant. & Noucas, (orally), Mulvey, James G. Jr. Decided Aug. Cornell, Portsmouth, N.H., P.A., Noucas & appellee. WATHEN, GLASSMAN, BRODY, JJ.
Jayne judg- Tillotson from a appeals C. County of the York ment Probate (Brooks, J.) distributing undivided half property in the York of her shares Beach father, Til- Haynes, deceased M. David Sally and her sister H. Tillot- lotson Smith. Code, at 18- son contends the Probate 3-906(a)(4) (1981), A mandated M.R.S.A. § in property be and distributed that the sold cash, erred in Probate Court equitable in distributing permit it kind to pending Superior in partition Smith’s affirm the of the Pro- suit. We bate Court. Haynes parcel
M. consist- David owned improved lots ing of several of land During his cottage on York Beach. one gave daughters Tillotson lifetime he his quarter an one and Smith each undivided lots, unimрroved interest some retaining share as tenant an undivided half He also an undivided in common. owned adjacent interest an lot with boat- half house, in common individuals that with two Haynes re- parties are not this action. lots occu- the full fee interest tained 11, 1987 cottage. April pied his On leaving provided Haynes died will the residue for Tillotson and Smith to take