Vigna v. Allstate Insurance Co.
686 A.2d 598
Me.
1996
Check Treatment

*1 Although Court is directed to

certify petitions Court, to the District

dismissal appropriate was in this case be- demonstrated that he was not

making good filing faith emergency 4664(3).

relief to section Instead of

seeking emergency relief, he sought a com-

plete adjudication petition of his

previously been denied relief in the District

Court. Because defendant did not claim the

unavailability aof judge District Court

did not seek to show a for emergency need

relief, petition properly was dismissed.

Judgment affirmed. concurring.

All Jr., VIGNA,

Bernard et al.

ALLSTATE COMPANY. INSURANCE

Supreme Judicial Court Maine. Sept.

Argued 1996.

Decided Nov.

599 suffering” suffered “emotional tor a result his reasonable reliance as pay. After Allstate plaintiffs’ promises to plaintiffs complaint, to defend declined seeking a declaration this action commenced duty to defend. On cross- that Allstate has a summary judgment, Superior motions for motion, granted All- Court denied motion, duty found no state’s appeal. now Plaintiffs has a to an insurer Whether particular question is a in a law, Royal Union Ins. v. Commercial 1081, and we 1082 decision de novo. review the trial court’s v. Farm Mut Ins. Gibson (orally), Christopher A. G. John Graustein 1350, We determine A.2d Drummond, Jernigan, MacM- Woodsum & by comparing duty to defend ahon, Portland, for Plaintiffs. underlying complaint tions (orally), Douglas Douglas, Whit- Martica S. provisions of the insurance Commer Portland, ing, Rogers, & for Defen- Denham complaint A.2d at 1082. If a cial Union 658 dant. ulti “potential ... facts reveals mately proved come within the cover WATHEN, C.J., ROBERTS, Before Travelers age,” a to defend exists. GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, Indem. v.Co. DANA, LIPEZ, JJ. complaint legal “Even a ly to motion to dis insufficient withstand WATHEN, Chief Justice. to to defend if shows gives miss rise Plaintiffs Bernard and Claudia B. to a claim within the insur an intent state summary judgment appeal from the en- Pott omitted). (citations coverage.” Id. ance Superior (Sagadahoc tered in the Court ease, the court based C.J.) Cole, County, of their favor ruling that “a failure on the determination insurer, appeal, defendant Allstate. On ‘accident or to for services is not an plaintiffs contend Court exposure conditions’within the to continuous ruling that Allstate had no to erred policies.” The court also brought against defend an action them not intend stated party. agree, and we vacate the third of a out to cover claims of breach ed judgment. promise.” Because contract or developed purposes of as for facts too phrase “accident or occurrence” read the summary judgment may be summarized narrowly, do and because plaintiffs were follows: At all relevant times injury arising coverage bodily a “Deluxe disputes, from contract-related Policy” “Personal Um- and a Homeowner’s complaint revealed erred Policy.” were sued brella A correct a covered claim. pay for contractor for failure to comparison test establishes application of the to their house. The renovations duty defend. the existence lien; of a mechanic’s sought enforcement provides Homeowner’s The Allstate damages on the theories compensatory prop- coverage “bodily injury or meruit, unjust contract, quantum breach of erty damage from an accident-” enrichment, promissory estoppel; and policy. The is not defined “Accident” punitive damages. separate count provides contrac- Allstate Umbrella estoppel alleged that the promissory “personal injury tional “occurrence” within the damage Family policy. an occurrence.” “Occur- the Farm rence” is defined as “accident or a contin- omitted). (citation Id. at 1353 Also see exposure uous to conditions.” “Personal Burns v. Middlesex Insurance jury” is defined in the Umbrella *3 “bodily injury” include anguish and “mental may intentional tort where insured have not injury.” and mental wanted, “subjectively subjectively or foresaw bodily injury”), Bay Massachusetts excluded, claim Unless a for emotion Construction, Company surance v. Ferraiolo triggers al distress an insurer’s to de gravel 584 A.2d 608 where “bodily injury” coverage fend under if the pit excavator not have “intended” to by emotional distress is caused an “accident damage). contractor’s meaning or occurrence” within the of the allege does not that the emotional Bonding Douglas Dy In Maine v. intentionally distress was caused nor does namics, (Me.1991), 594 A.2d 1079 held we argue Allstate that it was. The fact that that an insurer a defend a claim payment voluntarily was withheld does not allegedly by emotional distress a inexorably place consequences the of that wrongful discharge from employment be scope the of conduct outside the of so, possible, remotely cause “it is albeit that an “accident or occurrence.” there would be can next Allstate advances the court’s ‘bodily injury, establish that suffered sick plaintiffs’ conduct did not consti ness disease’ a of result emotional tute an “accident occurrence” because by discharge.” distress caused his at Id. not were intended to cover claims out of a breach of contract or present case the emotional distress promise.” agree We that these were allegedly arose from of with- act not intended to cover the economic loss holding payment having perfor- induced promise. flows from breach of contract or by promise pay. mance Allstate injury “proper Economic does not constitute argues payment that the of withholding act ty damage” purposes cover insurance intentional, was deliberate and and cannot Ray age. Packing L. Co. v. Commercial (Me.1983). constitute an “accident” or An Ins., “occurrence.” Union unanticipated an “accident” is event. The however, policies, Both are intended to cover purposes an “accidental” nature of event for bodily injury accidentally from results contract, liability of a standard insurance causing that the conduct conduct. fact however, from does derive the voluntari- bodily injury in the occurs the context act, ness of the but rather from the uninten- dispute, preclude contract-related does not consequences flowing of the tional nature policies. under the from act. Gibson v. Mut. Farm reject request also that we Ins. 673 A.2d 1350 In Gibson adopt prevails the rule in In California. neighbor’s we suit Exchange, Truck Ins. Waller v. Cal.4th trespass the insured. We stated: (1995) Cal.Rptr.2d 900 P.2d 619 Family argues neigh- Keating Farm that all the v. Fire Ins. National Union Co. of (9th (in- Cir.1993) allegations against Pittsburgh, bors’ Gibsons 995 F.2d 154 law), terpreting volve intentional acts California the courts rea- Gibsons physical such acts therefore is excluded soned that emotional distress If, however, any coverage.... with contract or claims associated business- disputes parasitic claims circumstances the harms claimed related deriva- underlying neighbors’ lawsuits could constitute an tive of economic losses. The consequence accidental unintended of an courts held that these derivative claims allegedly intentionally scope of act committed outside the insurance Gibsons, for such and found no Gibsons’ Under analysis, escapes of an an con- harm would be the result uninten- insurer its Justice, RUDMAN, concurring of the obligations tractual to defend because dissenting part. loss and presumed link between economic bodily injury. analysis is inconsis Such conclu- court’s Although I with the Union tent with our decisions Commercial defend obligation to has an that Allstate sion Royal v. 658 A.2d 1081 Pott, Vigna, Jr. and Claudia Bernard P. Dynamics, Bonding Douglas and Maine herein, its umbrella pursuant to we In both cases conclusion disagree with the court’s imposed claims pur- obligation to defend has an that Allstate from contract-re V policy. In Count suant to homeowners’ disputes. lated Smith complaint brought Howard indemnify the has contracted to defend and Pott, alleges that against Vigna and “bodily injury property dam insured for *4 for his Vigna promised and Pott (or occur age an accident relied that Smith labor and materials: rence).” company wishes to If the insurance promise; and reliance Smith’s bodily inju coverage for in the prejudice detriment him “actual damages or occur ry accidents fi’om income, outlays uncompensated of lost form contract-related, must which are rences services, and emotional for material and language clearly express that intent poli- suffering.” Allstate’s homeowners’ contract. intention of “[T]he its insurance cy provides: gathered, from what parties must be Do Not Cover: Losses We they in parties thought or did or said tended, Hart but from the contract itself.” Mut. Fire Fire Ins. Co. v. Merrimack

ford liability an in- do not cover 15. We (Me. Company, Insurance any un- person assumes sured 1988). cannot be “The terms agreement. contract written judicial construc enlarged or diminished Casualty and tion.” v. Aetna Limberis

Surety clearly unambiguous ex- statement This and Pott Even if the claim for cludes merit, of its contract with lacks Allstate is not relieved under their unwritten assumed therefore, poli I, judg- affirm the obligation to defend. would contractual Smith. as it declares that Allstate will defend covered ment of the trial insofar cies state obligation part of Allstate against no on the allegations claims even de- false, provide or fraudu to its homeowners’ “groundless, indemnify Vigna and Pott. Since or to entirely that an in fense It is conceivable lent.” All- is exclusion contained there no such obligated be surer state’s umbrella ultimately dismissed by the declaratory judgment entered Traveler’s failure to state claim. See as it be vacated insofar trial court should 220, 226 dem. Co. obligation of Allstate on the declares case, Allstate has provide umbrella pursuant to its plaintiffs against the indemnify Vigna and Pott. defense or to suffering pain and tions of emotional underlying complaint. shall be: entry to the Su- Judgment vacated. Remanded proceedings consis- for further

perior Court opinion herein.

tent with CLIFFORD,

ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, LIPEZ, JJ., concurring.

DANA, and