 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MAINE MUT. FIRE v. AMER. INT'L UNDERWRITERS6/24/1996
American International Underwriters Insurance Company appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Mills, J.) granting Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Company's motion for a summary judgment and denying American International's motion for a summary judgment. On appeal, American International contends that the Superior Court erred in determining as a matter of law that (1) the insured's automobile policy issued by American International provides coverage for the disputed claim, and (2) the insured's homeowner's policy issued by Maine Mutual does not provide coverage for the claim. Because we conclude that the claim against the insured falls within the coverage provided by the insured's Maine Mutual homeowner's policy, and is not excluded by the exclusionary clause contained in that policy, we vacate the judgment.
The facts in this case are undisputed. On June 20, 1991, Michael Thompson drove to work with his dog in his truck. At approximately 3:00 p.m. that day, Michael drove, with the dog still in his truck, from work to the home of his parents. On arriving at his parent's home, Michael parked his vehicle in front of the home, let the dog out of the truck, tied it to the truck with a ten- to twelve-foot length of chain, and went inside his parent's home for a visit. At some point after being tied, the dog jumped onto the flatbed of Michael's truck.
On that same day, ten-year-old Jacob Gosselin went swimming in the pool at Michael's parent's home. Just before 5:00 p.m., Jacob got up on the flatbed of the truck to pet the dog. Jacob petted the dog for approximately five to ten minutes, after which the dog bit Jacob in the face. At the time of this incident, Michael was insured pursuant to an automobile policy issued by American International and a homeowner's policy issued by Maine Mutual.
Michael's homeowner's policy provides liability coverage for "bodily injury . . . caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies." It also explicitly provides medical payment coverage "to a person off the insured location, if the bodily injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the care of the insured." The policy further states that "Coverage E — Personal Liability and Coverage F — Medical Payments to Others do not apply to bodily injury or property damage . . . arising out of . . . the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles."
Michael's automobile policy issued by American International provides that " e will pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any insured becomes
Michael Thompson assigned to Maine Mutual all of his rights under his automobile policy issued by American International. Thereafter, Maine Mutual filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment asserting that Michael's homeowner's policy excluded coverage for this claim, and that there was coverage under Michael's automobile policy.
Maine Mutual filed a motion for a summary judgment. American International filed its opposition along with its own motion for a summary judgment. The parties agreed that "the facts [were] not in dispute for the purposes of the otions." The court entered a summary judgment in favor of Maine Mutual and against American International, and subsequently ordered American International to pay Maine Mutual the $55,000 it had paid in settlement to Jacob's father. This appeal by American International followed.
Because there is no material factual dispute, the matter was appropriate for disposition by summary judgment. Chadwick-BaRoss, Inc. v. T. Buck Constr., Inc., 627 A.2d 532, 534 (Me. 1993) (citations omitted). The issue before us is the correct construction of the insurance policies inv
Page 1 2 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|