Kinney v. Maine Mutual Group Insurance Company
| Citation | 874 A.2d 880,2005 ME 70 |
| Parties | JANE KINNEY v. MAINE MUTUAL GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Decision Date | 15 June 2005 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
Stephen M. Brett, Esq., Stephen M. Brett, LLC, York Beach, ME, Attorney for plaintiff.
Lance E. Walker, Esq., Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Portland, ME, Attorney for defendant.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.1
[¶1] Jane Kinney appeals from the entry of a summary judgment by the District Court (Biddeford, Foster, J.), in favor of Maine Mutual Group Insurance Company (MMG). Kinney asserts that there are disputes of material fact as to whether (1) her claim is covered by the MMG policy, and (2) her application for insurance contained material misrepresentations pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2411 (2000), entitling MMG to rescind her auto insurance policy. Because there remain disputes as to material facts, we vacate and remand for determination of the facts.
[¶2] After filling out and signing an application for homeowners and automobile insurance policies with the assistance of a local insurance agent, Jane Kinney was issued MMG insurance policies covering her home and personal auto. In September 2001, Kinney rented a twenty-four-foot "maxi moving van" for her personal use in moving household belongings. After she had parked the vehicle, a tree branch fell on it, causing $6712.95 in damages. Kinney promptly reported the loss to MMG and sought payment of the claim under her personal auto insurance policy. MMG declined to pay the claim, informing Kinney that, although the vehicle had been rented for personal use, it was larger than rental vehicles that would be covered under the "non-owned" or rental auto provisions of her policy. The following month, MMG informed Kinney that it was canceling her auto insurance policy because she had made material misrepresentations on her policy application by failing "to disclose licensed operators in the household."
[¶3] After failing to resolve the issues with MMG, Kinney filed a complaint with the District Court. The complaint, in three counts, sought (1) a declaratory judgment that MMG was obligated to pay Kinney's claim under the terms of its policy; (2) recovery for breach of contract for failure to pay under the policy; and (3) recovery under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices law, 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2436, 2436-A (2000 & Supp. 2004).
[¶4] MMG initially filed an answer denying Kinney's factual allegations and indicating that it contested her claims. MMG then filed an amended answer and a motion to amend its answer to include a counterclaim for rescission. The counterclaim asserted that Kinney's auto insurance policy should be declared void ab initio, because Kinney had made material misrepresentations in her application for the policy, justifying rescission of the policy pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2411. The court allowed the amended answer and counterclaim. The parties then engaged in discovery and other activities, moving the case towards trial. In June 2004, the court issued a scheduling order directing that discovery be completed by July 30, 2004, and indicating that any motions for summary judgment should be filed within thirty days of the close of discovery or would be deemed waived.
[¶5] In August 2004, MMG filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a statement of material facts and a draft order for the court's signature. The memorandum, incorporated with the motion, and referencing the statement of material facts, asserted that MMG was entitled to summary judgment because: (1) Kinney's "material misrepresentations" entitled MMG to rescission of her auto insurance policy pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2411; (2) the terms of Kinney's auto insurance policy did not extend coverage to the large vehicle she had rented; and (3) there was no factual basis for Kinney's claims under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices law.
[¶6] The MMG motion and accompanying draft order for the court sought judgment in favor of MMG "as to all counts." The original motion did not reference the counterclaim, although a primary focus of the motion was MMG's assertion of its entitlement to the rescission of the insurance contract pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2411.
[¶7] Three days after filing the original motion, MMG filed an amended motion and statement of material facts, this time seeking judgment "as to all counts in the complaint and counterclaim." The separate filings created a confusing, moving target to which Kinney was required to respond.2
[¶8] The factual issues between the parties focused on the circumstances surrounding the preparation of Kinney's application for insurance and her responses to various questions on the policy application. MMG asserted that Kinney had made material misrepresentations in her application for the policy by failing to disclose, in answering a question requesting identification of dependents, three children ages sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen whom she claimed as dependents for income tax purposes. MMG also asserted that Kinney had failed to identify as licensed drivers in her home her seventeen and eighteen-year-old sons, both of whom had bad driving records. MMG also asserted that its practices in processing Kinney's claim were appropriate and did not entitle her to recovery under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices law.
[¶9] In response, Kinney asserted that the answers to the questions on her application had been entered by a local MMG agent during a phone conversation with Kinney and then sent to her for signature. She also asserted that the agent had never asked her if there were other dependents or licensed drivers in her home and that, in any event, her sons, who were licensed drivers, were not residents of her home. She also stated that she had signed the policy application sent to her as filled out by the local insurance agent. Thus, Kinney asserted, she had not engaged in any material misrepresentations or omissions in making the application to MMG and that any errors or omissions were the responsibility of the local MMG agent.
[¶10] The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure require that opposition to any motions must be filed within twenty-one days of the filing of the motion, or the opposition is deemed waived. M.R. Civ. P. 7(c)(2)(3). Kinney's opposition to the MMG motion for summary judgment was approximately seven days late. Counsel for MMG sent the court two letters asserting that by failing to file a timely opposition to MMG's motion for summary judgment, Kinney had waived opposition and that summary judgment should be entered in accordance with MMG's motion. MMG also filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion.
[¶11] On October 8, 2004, without conducting any hearing, the court granted MMG's motion for summary judgment. The court utilized the form order originally filed by MMG, but amended it to indicate that it had considered Kinney's opposition prior to reaching its decision to grant the motion. As signed, the court's order stated:
[¶12] After an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, Kinney brought this appeal.
[¶13] The court's order granting judgment for MMG "as to all counts" did not explicitly address MMG's counterclaim. Subject to exceptions to the final judgment rule that are not applicable here, a judgment is not final and appealable if it fails to resolve all pending claims. Me. Health Alliance v. Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of Me., 2003 ME 144, ¶ 6, 837 A.2d 135, 137. If any count of a complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim remains to be decided after the entry of a judgment from which an appeal is taken, the appeal is not taken from a final judgment. Id. This limitation avoids...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prime Tanning Co. Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...1, 9 (1st Cir.1998). “An insurance contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different interpretations.” Kinney v. Me. Mut. Group Ins. Co., 2005 ME 70, ¶ 18, 874 A.2d 880, 885; accord Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505, 509 (Mo.2010) ( “[l]anguage is ambiguous if it is reasonably......
-
Ryder v. Usaa General Indem. Co.
...7, 868 A.2d 244, 246. "An insurance contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different interpretations." Kinney v. Me. Mut. Group Ins. Co., 2005 ME 70, ¶ 18, 874 A.2d 880, [¶ 12] Furthermore, in an appeal from the grant of a summary judgment, we consider the facts in the lig......
-
Fortin v. Titcomb
...A.2d at 1217, the Law Court also has routinely focused on the insurer and the objective of coverage. See, e.g., Kinney v. Maine Mut. Group Ins. Co., 874 A.2d 880, 885 (Me.2005) ( “Any ambiguity in an insurance policy must be resolved against the insurer and in favor of coverage.”); Foremost......
-
S. Portland Police Patrol v. S. Portland
...2004 ME 128, ¶ 9, 861 A.2d 668, 670). "A material fact is one that has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit." Kinney v. Me. Mut. Group Ins. Co., 2005 ME 70, ¶ 15, 874 A.2d 880, 884. "We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo." Darling's v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 ME 22......