Emery Lee & Sons v. Acadia Insurance Group, LLC

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: March 9, 2016
• Docket: CUMcv-14-117
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

( (

~) STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket# CV-14-117

~~TEOFMAJNf Cum1..11:nRand, EMERY LEE & SONS, INC. ~. Clem'~ Oh MAR 09 2ms v. ORDER

ACADIA INSURANCE GROUP, LLC RECEIVED

SUMMARY

Pending are cross motions for summary judgment, Emery Lee's motion for

summary judgment and Acadia's cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

Emery Lee & Sons, Inc. (Emery Lee) filed a complaint for a breach of contract.

Rel yi ng on the debris-removal provision in its insurance policy, Emery Lee wants

Defendant Acadia Insurance Group, LLC (Acadia) to pay for the removal of the

remains of its destroyed building. Emery Lee filed a motion for summary judgment

and Acadia filed an opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment.

This Court denies Emery Lee's motion because Emery Lee cannot establish a breach

of a material contract term . And this Court grants Acadia's cross-motion because

Emery Lee failed to make a prima facie case for a breach of contract.

Plaintiff Emery Lee is a Maine corporation that had a plant in Millinocket,

Maine. (Pl.'s S.M .F. ir,r1-2; Lee Aff. ,r 3; Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r,r 1-2.) On March 16, 2012,

fire destroyed the plant. (Pl.'s S.M.F. ,r 3; Lee Aff. ,r 4; Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r 3.) Defendant

· cadia Insurance Group, LLC, (Acadia) insured Emery Lee's plant. (Pl.'s S.M .F. ,r 4; ( (

Lee Aff. ,r 5; Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r 4, as qualified.) Acadia paid the building limits under

the policy, (Pl.'s S.M.F. ,r 5; Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r 5, as qualified), which was $338,000. ·,-

(Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r 5, as qualified.)

Although both parties agree that the plant was completely destroyed,

portions of the destroyed plant remain that Emery Lee wants removed. (Pl.'s S.M.F.

,r,r 3, 8, Lee Aff. ,r,r 4, 7, Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r,r 4, 8.) Emery Lee wanted to dismantle and remove the remains of the destroyed plant. (Pl.'s S.M.F. ,r 8, Lee Aff. ,r 7, Def.'s

O.S.M.F. ,r 8.) Emery Lee received an estimate 1 of $163,000 from Ideal Recycling,

Inc. (Ideal Recycling) to remove the remains. (Pl.'s S.M.F. ,r 9, Lee Aff. ,r 8, Def.'s

O.S.M.F. ,r 9, objected, qualified.) The estimate began with the heading, "[C]ost for

Demo of Concrete Plant." (Lee Aff. ,r 8, Exhibit 3.) Ideal Recycling listed the various

tasks covered in the estimate, such as "Demo of all Foundations," "Removal of Demo

Debris," "Take Wall down," "Cutting up of Steel," and "Haul Away." (Lee Aff. ,r 8,

Exhibit 3.) Acadia has refused to pay for this removal. (Pl.'s S.M.F. ,r 6, Lee Affidavit

,r 6, Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r 6.) "Debris removal" is covered by Section A.4.a of the insurance policy:

(1) Subject to Paragraphs (3) and ( 4), we will pay your expense to remove debris of Covered Property caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss that occurs during the policy period. The expenses will only be paid if they are reported to us in writing within 180 days of the date of direct physical loss or damage.

(3) Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph ( 4), the following provisions apply: (a) The most we will pay for the total of direct physical loss or damage plus debris removal expense is the Limit of Insurance applicable to the Covered Property that has sustained loss or damage.

1 Emery Lee included the estimate as Exhibit 3 to Darin Lee's affidavit. (Pl.'s S.M.F. ,r 8.)

2 ( (

(b) Subject to (a) above, the amount we will pay for debris removal expense is limited to 25% of the sum of the deductible plus the amount that we pay for direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property that has sustained loss or damage. ( 4) We will pay up to an additional $250,000 for debris removal expense, for each location in any one occurrence of physical loss or damage to Covered Property, if one or both of the following circumstances apply: (a) The total of actual debris removal expense plus the amount we pay for direct physical loss or damage exceeds the Limit of Insurance on the Covered Property that has sustained loss or damage. (b) The actual debris removal expense exceeds 25 % of the sum of the deductible plus the amount that we pay for direct physical loss or damage to the Covered Property that has sustained the loss or damage. Therefore, if (4)(a) and/or (4)(b) apply, our total payment for direct physical loss or damage a nd debris removal expenses may reach but will never exceed the Limit of Insurance on the Covered Property that has sustained the loss or damage, plus $250,000.

(Pl. 's S.M.F. ,r 10; Def.'s O.S.M.F. ,r 10.)

II. Procedural history.

On March 17, 2014, Emery Lee filed a complaint for breach of contract

against Acadia. On April 15, 2014, Acadia filed an answer to Emery Lee's complaint.

On April 21, 2015, Emery Lee filed a motion for summary judgment, a statement of

material facts, and a request for a non-testimonial heari ng. 2 Emery Lee's statement

of material facts included Darin B. Lee's affi davit as Exhibit A. On May 12, 2015,

Acadia filed an objection to Emery Lee's motion for summary judgment and a cross-

motion for summary judgment in the same document. Acadia also filed an

opposition to Emery Lee's statement of material facts. On June 3, 2015, Emery Lee

2 On the same day, Emery Lee explained in a cover letter that earl ier versions of its motion

challenged two areas of coverage: debris removal and code coverage, an d withdrew th e co de- coverage claim. (Pl.'s cover letter fro m Ap ril 21, 2015.)

3 ( (

filed an opposition to Acadia's cross-motion for summary judgment, which included

a copy of Keith Drost's affidavit. On June 10, 2015, Acadia filed a reply in support of

its cross-motion for summary judgment.

III. Standard of review.

Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the parti es' statements of

material fact and the cited record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Dyer v.

Dep't ofTransp., 2008 ME 106, ,r 14, 951 A.2d 821. "A material fact is one that can

affect the outcome of the case. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the [fact

finder] must choose between competing versions of the truth ." Dyer, 2008 ME 106,

,r 14, 951 A.2d 821 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). When deciding a moti on for summ ary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

When there are cross-motions for summary judgment, the rules for

consideration of summary judgment are applied separately to each motion. F.R.

Carroll, Inc., v. TD Bank, N.A., 2010 ME 115, ,r 8, 8 A.3d 646. Courts analyze each

motion separately to give the opposing party the benefit of any reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from the presented facts . Id. ,r 8. As a result, this

Court separately evaluates Emery Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment and Acadia's

Cross -Motion for Summary Judgment.

IV. Emery Lee's motion for summary judgment.

Emery Lee stated that its insurance policy covered debris removal. Emery

Lee argued that its building was destroyed, as shown by Acadia's decision to pay the

4 / . (

building's insurance limit. Emery Lee concluded that the building's remains are

debris, so the plain meaning of th e policy covers removing the building's remains,

even if the remains are not merely lying on the ground.

When the plaintiff is the moving party on a motion for summary judgment,

the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that each element of its claim is

established without dispute as to material fact with in the summary-judgment

record. North Star Capital Acquisition, LLC v. Victor, 2009 ME 129, ,r 8, 984 A.2d

12 78. Emery Lee filed a complaint for a breach of contract. The elements of a

breach of contract are breach of a material contract term, causation, and damages.

See Maine Energy Recovery Co. v. United Steel Structures, Inc., 1999 ME 31, ,r,r 7-8,

724 A. 2d 1248.

A. Material contract te rm: actual debris removal expense.

The parties argue ab out two material contract terms: "debris removal" and

"actual debris removal expense." Addressing "debris removal," Emery Lee argued

that the debris-removal provision covers the removal of the building's remains.

Acad ia argued that the provision covers the removal of the remains as they existed

immediately following th e fire, but the removal does not include costs for any

furt her demolition of th e r emaining portions. This Court does not need to

determine what the debris -removal provision covers because, even under Emery

Lee's interpretation, Emery Lee has not demonstrated another material contract

term: actual debris removal expense.

Emery Lee did not address the meaning of "actu al debris removal expense"

under Section A.4.a ( 4) (a) of the insurance policy in its motion for summary

5 ( (

judgment, but Emery Lee needed to do so because "actual debris removal expense"

is a mat erial contract term and an element of Emery Lee's breach-of-contract claim.

In Acadia's Opposition to Emery Lee's motion for summary judgment and Acadia's

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Acadia argued that debris removal damages

are not covered unless Emery Lee provided proof of actual debris removal and the

costs expended to remove the debris. Acadia highlighted that Emery Lee provided

an estimate only. In a reply, Emery Lee argued that the plain meaning of the policy

does not require actual expense and the provision merely establishes the

circumstances under which debris removal coverage becomes available. Moreover,

Emery Lee argued that the policy used similar language in another provision under

which Acadia already paid Emery Lee. To resolve this dispute, this Court must

determine whether Emery Lee must establish actual debris-removal expenses

before Acadia reimburses Emery Lee under Section A.4.a ( 4) (a) of the insurance

policy.

"Determining whether or not a contract is ambiguous is a question of law."

Am. Prat. Ins. Co. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2003 ME 6, ,r 11, 814 A.2d 989 (citations omitted).

"Contract language is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible of different

interpretations." Am. Prat. Ins. Co. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2003 ME 6, ,r 11, 814 A.2d 989

( citations omitted). If the language of the policy is ambiguous, courts "construe it

against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured, but in that case, summary

judgment may not be granted because an unresolved factual issue, i.e., the intent of

the parties, remains for the trier of fact." Dickau v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. , 2014 ME 158 ,r

13, 107 A.3d 621 ( quotations and citations om itted).

6 ( (

If a court determines that the contract is unambiguous, then its

interpretation is also a question of law. Am. Prat. Ins. Co. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2003 ME

6, ,r 11, 814 A.2d 989 (citations omitted). "The interpretation of an unambiguous

contract 'must be determined from the plain meaning of the language used and from

the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence." Am. Prat.

Ins. Co. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2003 ME 6, ,r 11, 814 A.2d 989 (citations omitted).

Section A.4.a (4)(a) of the insurance policy states:

(4) We will pay up to an additional $250,000 for debris removal expense, for each location in any one occurrence of physical loss or damage to Covered Property, if on or both of the following circumstances apply: (a) The total of the actual debris removal expense plus the amount we pay for direct physical loss or damage exceeds the Limit of Insurance on the Covered Property that has sustained loss or damage.

(Pl.'s S.M.F. if 10; Def.'s O.S.M.F. if 10.)

To resolve this issue, this Court must define "actual debris removal expense."

"Actual" means "existing in fact and not merely potentially" and "existing in fact or

reality." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Full Definition of "actual,"

http ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary /actual (last visited Feb. 4, 2016); see

also Black's Law Dictionary 35 (7th ed. 1999)(defining "actual" as "existing in fact;

real"). "Expense" is "the act or an instances of expending: expenditure," "something

expended to secure a benefit or bring about a result," and "financial burden or

outlay: cost." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Full Definition of "expense,"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary /expense (last visited Feb. 4, 2016);

see also Black's Law Dictionary 598 (7th ed. 1999)(defi ning "expense" is "[a]n

7 ( (

expenditure of money, time, labor, or resources to accomplish a result; esp., a

business expenditure chargeable against revenue for a specific period"). "Expend"

means "to pay out: spend." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Full Definition of

"expend," http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expend (last visited Feb.

4, 2016). Based on plain meaning, an "actual debris removal expense" means an

existing pay out.

Looking at the four corners of the policy, no other clause changes the plain

meaning. Emery Lee argued that it should get paid without an actual expense

because it received payment under another provision of the policy in Section A that

uses similar language of "we will pay": "We will pay for direct physical loss of or

damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused

by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." (Building and Personal Property

Coverage Form at 1.) But Emery Lee's argument is unpersuasive because the "we

will pay" language in Section A.4.a (4)(a) has a condition precedent: actual debris

removal expense.

Emery Lee also argued that the actual debris removal expense provision does

not exist to determine the amount Acadia must pay, but merely establishes the

circumstances for when debris removal coverage becomes available. Even under

Emery Lee's interpretation, debris removal coverage is unavailable until the

policyholder establishes an actual debris remo val expense.

Based on the plain language and the four corners of the insurance policy, an

insured is required to demonstrate the insured paid for debris removal before

recovering under Section A.4.a (4)(a) of this insurance policy. Specifically, this

8 ( (

Court finds that Emery Lee must pay for debris removal before Acadia reimburses

Em ery Lee under Section A.4.a (4) (a).

B. Emery Lee has not shown actual debris removal expense.

Emery Lee has not established a prima facie case that it has complied with

Section A.4.a (4)(a) of this insurance policy. Ideal Recycling provided an estimate of

$163,000 to remove the remains of the plant and Emery Lee provided affidavits

from Darin B. Lee and Keith Drost to support it. Neither the estimate nor the

affidavits establish a prima facie case for actual debris removal expense.

If record evidence or necessary documentation to support a fact essential to

a claim is lacking in the statement of material facts, or if documentation is

insufficiently authenticated in the record referenced in the statement of material

facts , summary judgment must be denied. See FIA Card Servs. v. Saintaonge, 2013

ME 65, ,r 2-3, 70 A.3d 1224; see also Cach LLC v. Kulas, 2011 ME 70, 2011 ME 70, ,r,r

11 -12, 21 A.3d 1015. Documents that are unaccompanied by an authenticating

affidavit based on personal knowledge under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)

should not be considered for purposes of summary judgment. See Cach, 2011 ME

70, ,r 11, 21 A.3d 1015.

Neither Le e' s nor Drost's affidavit supports Id eal Recycling's estimate. Lee's

affidavit does not provide any foundational facts to support the admissibility of

Ideal Recycling's estimate. Lee lacks the personal knowledge of estimate's creation.

Lee shows that Emery Lee received the estimate, but does not provide any facts that

authenticate the estimate. Thus, Lee's affidavit fails to esta blish the necessary

foundation for admi tt ing the estimate.

9 ( (

Emery Lee provided Drost's affidavit to admit the estimate through the

business-records exception of the hearsay rule. "[A] business's record of acts or

events is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if the necessary foundation

is established by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness." Bank of

Me. v. Hatch, 2012 ME 35, ,r 7, 38 A.3d 1260 (quotations and citations omitted); see also M.R. Evid. 803(6). "A qualified witness is one who was intimately involved in

the daily operation of the business and whose testimony showed the firsthand

nature of [his or her] knowl edge." Hatch, 2012 ME 35, ,r 7, 38 A.3d 1260 (citation

omitted).

Emery Lee has not shown that Drost was the custodian of records for Ideal

Recycling or that he was a qualified witness to establish the necessa ry foundation

for the estimate. Drost stated he had under his "custody and control" a copy of the

estimate, which shows that he had a copy of the estimate, but that does not show

that he is a custodian of documents at Ideal Recycling. This is not enough to show

that Drost was intimately involved in the daily operation of Ideal Recycling or that

he had firsthand knowledge of the creation of the estimate.

Emery Lee does not have any other evidence to authenticate Ideal Recycling's

estimate. Without an authenticating affidavit complying with Rule 56(e), this Court

cannot consider Ideal Recycling's estimate in ruling on Emery Lee's motion for

summary judgment. Conse q uently, Emery Lee has not established a prima facie

case for actual debris removal expense under Section A.4.a (4)(a) of this insurance

policy, so this Court denies Emery Lee's motion for summary judgment.

V. Acadia's cross-motion for summary judgment.

10 (

Acadia filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Cross motions for

summary judgment do not warrant the grant of summary judgment per se. To

withstand a motion for a summary judgment, the plaintiff must establish a prima

facie case for each element of its cause of action that the defendant challenged.

Coffin v. Lariat Assocs., 2001 ME 33, ,r 7, 766 A.2d 1018. If a plaintiff does not

present sufficient evidence on the challenged elements, then the defendant is

entitled to a summary judgment. See Watt v. Uni First Corp., 2009 ME 4 7, ,r 21, 969

A.2d 897 (citation omitted).

Acadia argued that that the Policy required Emery Lee to establish actual

debris removal expense and Emery Lee failed to do so. As explained above, the

Policy required actual debris removal expense before Section A.4.a ( 4)(a) applied.

Emery Lee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.

Emery Lee merely provided an estimate of the expense and not the actual expense.

The estimate is not enough to satisfy this material contract term. Emery Lee failed

to make a prima facie case for this element, so Acadia is entitled to summary

judgment. Consequently, th is Court grants Acadia's cross-motion.

VI. The entry shall be.

11 / I

Emery Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Acadia's Cross-

Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is direct to incorporate this

Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).

March 9, 2016 y e A. Wheeler, Active-Retired Justice Maine Superior Court