Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1995 |
| Citation | 658 A.2d 1081 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Thomas F. Monaghan (orally), Monaghan, Leahy, Hochadel & Libby, Portland, for plaintiff.
James D. Poliquin (orally), Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, Portland, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.
Defendant, Royal Insurance Company, appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Brodrick, J.) holding Royal liable for a share of the defense costs incurred by plaintiff, Commercial Union Insurance Company, in defending the insureds, Francis Downey and Fill-it-Up Please, Inc. Commercial Union cross appeals from the court's apportionment of the defense costs. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
In 1990, Elliott Speers brought an action against Francis Downey and Fill-it-Up Please, Inc. The complaint alleged that during 1988, Downey and Fill-it-Up sold Speers a car wash system. The complaint included counts for the negligent design and installation of a car wash, and for negligent misrepresentation. In both counts, Speers alleged emotional distress as an element of damage. The complaint, however, did not specify when Speers suffered the emotional distress.
Royal provided insurance coverage to Downey and Fill-it-Up from April 8, 1987 to May 8, 1988 under a commercial general liability policy. 1 Downey notified Royal of Speers' lawsuit when it was commenced in 1990. In 1992, Royal informed Downey by letter that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him. Royal based its decision on information establishing that Speers did not open his car wash business until September 1989, more than a year after the termination of Downey's insurance contract with Royal. 2 Royal assumed that Speers' emotional distress could not have occurred prior to the opening of his car wash.
Commercial Union, Downey and Fill-it-Up's insurer under a commercial general liability policy from May 8, 1988 to May 1990, defended the action and incurred defense fees and costs. Commercial Union brought the present action for a declaratory judgment against Royal seeking reimbursement. Royal and Commercial Union both moved for a summary judgment. The Superior Court, relying on the "pleading comparison test," granted a summary judgment to Commercial Union and found that Royal had a duty to defend. After a trial on stipulated facts, the court apportioned the defense costs, and entered a judgment for Commercial Union for one-half of the $103,223.54 fees and costs.
Royal argues that the court erred in granting a summary judgment to Commercial Union. It urges us to find that exclusive use of the comparison test in determining an insurer's duty to defend is inappropriate when an uncontroverted fact outside of the complaint establishes that the claim for damages falls outside the coverage period.
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact set forth in those statements and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." M.R.Civ.P. 56(c). On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was rendered, and review the court's decision for error of law. Worcester Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 555 A.2d 1050, 1052 (Me.1989).
The question whether an insurer has a duty to defend in a particular case is a question of law. Baywood Corp. v. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., 628 A.2d 1029, 1030 (Me.1993). We use a comparison test to assess an insurer's duty to defend. State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bragg, 589 A.2d 35, 36 (Me.1991). Under that test, a court compares the allegations in the underlying complaint with the provisions of the insurance policy. Id. The insured is entitled to a defense if there is any legal or factual basis that could obligate an insurer to indemnify. Baywood, 628 A.2d at 1030; State Mut. Ins., 589 A.2d at 36. The complaint must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Employ. Ins. Co. v. DeLorme Pub. Co., Civ. 98-179-P-C.
...Under Maine law, whether an insurer has a duty to defend is determined under the "comparison test." See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1081, 1082 (Me.1995) (citing State Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bragg, 589 A.2d 35, 36 (Me.1991)); Dingwell, 414 A.2d at 226. "Under that test,......
-
OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Johnny's Selected Seeds Inc.
...that the insurer has discovered. Worcester Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 555 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1989); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1081, 1083 (Me. 1995). In Worcester Insurance Company, the Law Court considered extrinsic evidence that a gunshot wound by the def......
-
Veilleux v. Nat'l Broad. Co.
...emotional distress damages might be available for misrepresentation in some limited circumstances, see Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1081, 1083 (Me. 1995), it has never expressly overruled Jourdain or Chapman. We are reluctant to rely on this dicta to chart a broad n......
-
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Linton
... ... Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 2010 ME 44, ¶ 62, 995 A.2d ... 651, ... v ... Commercial Union Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 914, 924-25 (Me ... 1983) ... (quoting Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins ... Co., 658 A.2d 1081, 1083 (Me. 1995)) ... ...
-
Timing and settlement considerations when recoupment is sought in Buss cases.
...the costs of defending a mutual insurer for a suit that potentially triggered both policies. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1081 (Me. (11.) 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 (1998). (12.) While there may be little practical difference among these devices in most cases, the preferred......