Flaherty v. Allstate Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 2003
• Parties: Matthew FLAHERTY et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

822 A.2d 1159

2003 ME 72

Matthew FLAHERTY et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: December 10, 2002.

Decided: May 13, 2003.

Richard P. Olson (orally), Patrick J. Mellor, Perkins Olson, P.A., Portland, for plaintiffs.

Jonathan W. Brogan, Anne M. Carney (orally), Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Portland, for defendant.

Panel: CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.

CLIFFORD, J.

[¶ 1] Matthew Flaherty and Susan Carlisle appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.) dismissing their complaint against Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate urges us to dismiss the appeal, contending that the notice of appeal was not filed in a timely manner and that the Superior Court erred in granting a motion to extend the time within which to file the appeal. Allstate also defends the merits of the dismissal. We conclude that the appeal is timely, and we affirm the Superior Court's dismissal of Count II of the complaint. Matthew contends that the Superior Court's determination that Connecticut law should be applied was made without fully taking into account the significant contacts that Maine has to the parties involved in this case, and that there are substantial policy considerations favoring the application of Maine law. We agree and we vacate the dismissal of Count I, and remand to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

I.

[¶ 2] On January 1, 1999, Charles Flaherty, his pregnant wife, Josephine, and her daughter, Carlee, all Maine residents, were traveling on Route 95 from Maine towards Charles's duty station at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a vehicle driven by Silvestre Bonilla struck Charles's vehicle. At the time of the accident, Bonilla was driving in the wrong direction on Route 95, his blood-alcohol level was 0.23, he was under the influence of cocaine, he was unlicensed, he was driving in an unregistered vehicle, and he had no insurance coverage. Josephine and Carlee were killed instantly, and Charles died later that same evening at the hospital.

[¶ 3] Matthew Flaherty, Charles's father, was appointed as the personal representative of Charles's estate, which was probated in Maine. Charles had uninsured motorist coverage with USAA, and, in September of 1999, USAA sent a payment to Matthew, as personal representative, for the estate's share of the policy proceeds. At the time of his son's death, Matthew had uninsured motorist coverage with Allstate Insurance Company. Susan Carlisle, Charles's mother, also had uninsured motorist coverage through a policy issued by Allstate.

[¶ 4] Matthew is a resident of York, Maine. Susan also resided in Maine, although since her son's death, she lives part of the time in Arizona. On December 28, 2000, Matthew and Susan filed a complaint against Allstate in Superior Court. In Count I of the complaint, Matthew, as personal representative of Charles's estate, seeks recovery under the insurance contract between himself and Allstate, pursuant to Jack v. Tracy, 1999 ME 13, 722 A.2d 869. In Count II of the complaint, Matthew and Susan sought individual recovery based on their insurance contracts with Allstate.

[¶ 5] Allstate moved to dismiss both counts. Allstate argued for the dismissal of Count I because Connecticut's wrongful death statute applies, and, unlike Maine's wrongful death statute, Connecticut's statute does not create a cause of action for the heirs of the deceased that could be covered by the heirs' uninsured motorist coverage. Allstate argued that Count II should be dismissed because neither Matthew nor Susan qualify as either a direct or an indirect victim, and the complaint states no claim on which they could recover under their uninsured motorist coverage. In his opposition to the motion to dismiss Count I, Matthew contended, and continues to argue, that the court should apply Maine's wrongful death statute, and not Connecticut's statute. As to Count II, Matthew and Susan acknowledge that the law is as stated by Allstate, but they contend that there is a good faith exception to the law that applies to allow their recovery on Count II.

[¶ 6] The Superior Court concluded that the wrongful death statute of Connecticut, and not Maine applies, and dismissed Count I of the complaint. The court also dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim because the complaint did not allege any facts that would make either Matthew or Susan a direct or indirect victim.

[¶ 7] On March 11, 2002, thirty days after the trial court's order, Matthew and Susan filed a notice of appeal. On March 26, 2002, they filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file the appeal. The court granted the motion to extend, pursuant to M.R.App. P. 2(b)(5), over Allstate's objection. Allstate filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

II.

[¶ 8] Allstate contends that we are precluded from entertaining plaintiffs' appeal because the plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal and did not show excusable neglect for their failure. A trial court's determination of excusable neglect is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Gregory v. City of Calais, 2001 ME 82, ¶ 7, 771 A.2d 383, 386. Although "the standard for determining an excusable neglect defense is a strict one and can be met only when there are extraordinary circumstances that work an injustice," nevertheless, the trial court "has some discretionary range within which to grant or deny a motion for an enlargement of time." Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. We give a trial court's determination of excusable neglect "considerable deference because of its superior position to evaluate the credibility and good faith of the parties before it." Id. ¶ 9.

[¶ 9] Rule 2(b)(3) of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure, setting the time within which a party in a civil case must file a notice of appeal after entry of a judgment or order, became effective January 1, 2002, and shortened the appeal period from thirty days under the previous rule, to twenty-one days.¹ M.R.App. P. 2(b)(3). Rule 2(b)(5) of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure allows the court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal by up to twenty-one additional days if the appealing party makes a showing of excusable neglect.² M.R.App. P. 2(b)(5).

[¶ 10] We have upheld findings of excusable neglect when the circumstances leading to the late filing are exceptional. See, e.g., Gregory, 2001 ME 82, ¶¶ 4, 10-11,

771 A.2d at 385, 387 (upholding trial court's finding of excusable neglect because a previously reliable paralegal responsible for calendaring events had become ill and unable to effectively perform her duties); Solomon's Rock Trust v. Davis, 675 A.2d 506, 509 (Me.1996) (upholding trial court's finding of excusable neglect because of spouse's death and need to find replacement counsel). This suit was commenced by Matthew and Susan well before the recent changes in the rules as to the time for taking an appeal, at a time when prior Civil Rule 73(a), which had been in place for many years, allowed thirty days within which to file a notice of appeal. They filed this appeal on the thirtieth day following the dismissal, which would have been timely under the prior Civil Rule 73(a). The Superior Court's judgment of dismissal in this case was entered in early February of 2002, when the new appellate rule had been in effect for only a month, and the calendar system in the plaintiffs' attorney's office had not yet been changed to take the newly shortened appeal period into account. Matthew and Susan moved promptly for an extension of time within which to file the appeal, and the trial court did not act beyond its discretion when it granted the extension based on excusable neglect.³

See Gregory, 2001 ME 82, ¶ 9,

771 A.2d at 386.

III.

[¶ 11] Matthew contends that the dismissal of Count I was improper because the trial court's determination that Connecticut law should be applied was made without properly considering the significant contacts and relationships that Maine has to the parties involved in this case, and that, because of those contacts and relationships and substantial policy considerations, Maine's wrongful death statute, and not Connecticut's, should be applied to the claim in Count I.

[¶ 12] The determination of whether or not a complaint is sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is a question of law, which we review de novo. Bowen v. Eastman, 645 A.2d 5, 6-7 (Me.1994)

. When reviewing a trial court's dismissal of a complaint, we take the facts alleged in the complaint as if they were true, and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it alleges the elements of any cause of action that would entitle the plaintiff to relief under any legal theory. Danforth v. Gottardi, 667 A.2d 847, 848 (Me.1995). The complaint "should not be dismissed unless it is beyond doubt that no relief can be granted under any facts that might be proved to support the plaintiff's claim." Bowen, 645 A.2d at 6.

[¶ 13] Maine law requires uninsured motorist coverage to be included in all liability insurance policies in order to protect "persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured, underinsured or hit-and-run motor vehicles, for bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured, underinsured or hit-and-run motor vehicle." 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2902(1) (2000) (emphasis added). We have previously concluded that the legislative intent of the statute "is to benefit all insured motorists by throwing the burden of compensating for injuries which would otherwise go without redress from the individual victim to the insurance industry for a premium." Wescott v. Allstate Ins., 397 A.2d 156, 166 (Me.1979). In order to collect under an insured's own insurance policy for uninsured coverage, the insured must...