Dube v. Homeowners Assistance Corp.

Decision Date28 July 1993
PartiesRichard M. DUBE v. HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE CORPORATION.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Benjamin P. Townsend (orally), Daniel J. Stevens, Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen Smith & Lancaster, Augusta, for plaintiff.

Paul F. Macri (orally), Berman & Simmons, P.A., Lewiston, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, RUDMAN and DANA, JJ.

COLLINS, Justice.

Richard M. Dube appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of Homeowners Assistance Corporation (Homeowners) in the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Alexander, J.) on Dube's claims of negligence, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel arising out of Homeowners' failure to procure credit life and disability insurance in connection with his mortgage as allegedly promised by Homeowners' employee. Because we conclude that a summary judgment was inappropriate in the circumstances of this case, we vacate the judgment.

Dube alleges the following facts. On January 17, 1989, Dube and his wife, Patricia, signed a purchase and sale agreement to buy a new home in Turner. The agreement was contingent on, among other things, the Dubes' ability to secure satisfactory financing for the purchase.

On January 21, 1989, the Dubes met with Debbie Bodwell, a Homeowners' loan officer and filled out a loan application. Richard told Bodwell that he wanted credit life and disability insurance in connection with the financing of the Turner home. 1 Bodwell told Dube not to worry and assured him that the credit life and disability insurance would be taken care of at the time of closing. When Dube asked a second time, Bodwell asked Patricia if her husband always worried so much, and once again assured him that it would be taken care of at the closing. Bodwell noted that she and her husband had credit life and disability insurance separate from their mortgage. Dube replied that he wanted the insurance included in his mortgage. In reliance on Bodwell's representations, the Dubes did not seek financing from another company that offered credit life and disability insurance, nor did they arrange to secure such insurance on their own.

The closing was held March 3, 1989, and was conducted for Homeowners by Northeast Land Title. At the closing, the Dubes were asked to sign numerous documents, and they signed them.

On July 23, 1989, Patricia died unexpectedly. Following her death, Richard learned that the credit life and disability insurance had never been procured. When Dube discussed the lack of insurance with Bodwell, she told him that the insurance should have been in place, that it should have been arranged at the closing, and that she felt "really bad" about the failure to obtain insurance.

Dube instituted this action by a complaint alleging causes of action for a breach of contract, negligent failure to procure insurance, and promissory estoppel. In its amended answer to the complaint, Homeowners disclaimed any obligation to secure credit life and disability insurance for the Dubes, and denied that Bodwell had given the Dubes any assurances relating to credit life and disability insurance. Homeowners submitted other materials wherein Bodwell denied that the Dubes ever asked about credit life and disability insurance or that she had ever made any representations to them that it would be secured by or through Homeowners. Bodwell's deposition testimony likewise contradicts Dube's contentions regarding the insurance aspects of the transaction.

Homeowners moved for a summary judgment arguing that the breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds and by lack of consideration; that Homeowners had no duty to the Dubes to secure insurance that was sufficient to support a negligence claim; and that Dube's promissory estoppel claim was barred because Dube's reliance on Bodwell's representation that Homeowners would secure insurance was unjustifiable as a matter of law.

The court granted a summary judgment to Homeowners. The court's decision recited that the contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds and by lack of consideration, that "defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to procure credit life insurance," and that Dube "could not justifiably have relied, as a matter of law" on the representations of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Aseptic Packaging Council v. State
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1994
    ...presented no more evidence than was before the court at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment." Dube v. Homeowners Assistance Corp., 628 A.2d 1040, 1041 (Me.1993) (citations "All legislative enactments are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the constitutionality of ......
  • Top of the Track Associates v. Lewiston Raceways, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1995
    ...TOTA, against whom the summary judgment was granted, to determine if the trial court committed an error of law. Dube v. Homeowners Assistance Corp., 628 A.2d 1040, 1041 (Me.1993); Chasse v. Mazerolle, 622 A.2d 1180, 1182 From the outset, we recognize that there is no express provision in th......
  • Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1995
    ...to the party against whom the judgment was granted to determine if the trial court committed an error of law. Dube v. Homeowners Assistance Corp., 628 A.2d 1040, 1041 (Me.1993). "All legislative enactments are presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the constitutionality of a sta......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT