Galipeau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance C..

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 30, 2014
• Docket: KENcv-13-100
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ENTERED FEB 1 2 2015

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, SS. LOCATION: Augusta Docket No. CV-13-100

~MM- KtN-1~-~0-JVJ4- ) JUDITH M. GALIPEAU, Personal ) Representative ofthe ESTATE OF PAUL ) R. GALIPEAU, ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. ) ) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm")

issued four insurance policies in which Paul R. Galipeau was a named insured. Def. 's

S.M.F. ~~ 3, 15-18. Each insurance policy had a $100,000 uninsured motorist ("UM")

coverage limit. Id On August 15, 2012, Mr. Galipeau was fatally injured while

operating his motorcycle-a 1998 Harley Davidson FXSTC cruiser-in an accident that

involved a vehicle driven by non-party James Mitton. !d. at~~ 1-2, 4.

Plaintiff Judith M. Galipeau, as personal representative of Mr. Galipeau's estate,

(the "Estate") brought suit against Mr. Mitton alleging his negligence proximately caused

Mr. Galipeau's death. !d. at~ 6; Pl.'s S.M.F. ~ 6. Mr. Mitton carried $50,000 in liability

insurance with GEICO. Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 5. The Estate settled the negligence case with

Mr. Mitton for his $50,000 policy limit, with State Farm's knowledge and consent. !d. at

~ 6; Pl.'s S.M.F. ~ 6. Subsequently, State Farm paid $50,000 to the Estate under the

policy issued for Mr. Galipeau's motorcycle. Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 9. This amount represented the difference between the $100,000 in UM coverage provided by that policy

and the $50,000 the Estate collected from Mr. Mitton's liability coverage. !d.

In the present action, the Estate seeks coverage under the three non-motorcycle

insurance policies and damages arising out of State Farm's denial of coverage under said

policies. Complaint, ~~ 7-13. 1 State Farm moves for summary judgment arguing that the

"other-owned vehicle" exclusions in the non-motorcycle policies bar coverage for Mr.

Galipeau's bodily injury under said policies. State Farm also argues summary judgment

is warranted because under the anti -stacking provision, present in all four policies, the

Estate reached its coverage limitation. In support of this argument, State Farm argues

that the Galipeaus were clearly and unambiguously notified that pursuant to a new policy

form, their coverage was subject to the anti-stacking provision.

The Estate opposes State Farm's motion for summary judgment and files its own

motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the other-owned vehicle exclusions are

inconsistent with Maine's UM statute and should be held unenforceable in any context,

let alone here where the insured paid premiums under each of the four policies. The

Estate also argues that the anti-stacking provisions were not properly added to the

Galipeaus policies and that, in any event, they are unenforceable because they have the

effect of impermissibly leaving the non-motorcycle policies void of statutorily required

UM coverage.

For the reasons discussed below, the court grants State Farm's motion for

summary judgment against the Estate's complaint because the other-owned vehicle

exclusion bars coverage to the Galipeaus under the non-motorcycle policies. Since

1 The Estate's Complaint does not assert individualized causes of action. 11 2 The Cars" covered under the policies are identified in the table provided above

2 coverage under the non-motorcycle policies does not exist, the court need not address the

parties' arguments regarding the effect of the anti-stacking provision as that provision is

premised on the existence of coverage.

I. Factual Background

As discussed, Mr. Galipeau was fatally injured on August 15, 2012 while

operating his motorcycle in an accident with Mr. Mitton. Def. 's S.M.F. ~~ 1-2, 4.

Thereafter, the Estate sued Mr. Mitton claiming his negligence proximately caused Mr.

Galipeau's death. Id. at~ 6; Pl.'s S.M.F. ~ 6. The Estate settled with Mr. Mitton-with

the knowledge and consent of State Farm-for $50,000, the limit of Mr. Mitton's liability

insurance. Def.'s S.M.F. ~~5-6; Pl.'s S.M.F. ~ 6.

At the time of the accident Mr. Galipeau was a named insured on four motor

vehicle liability policies issued by State Farm:

Policy Number Effective Date Vehicle Insured Uninsured Motorist Coverage Limit 007-1073-B06-19C August 6, 2011 1998 Harley $100,000 Davidson FXSTC Cruiser 012-0919-A01-19P January 1, 2011 2006 Ford F-350 $100,000 Pick-Up Truck 008-7061-A10-19E January 10, 2011 2011 Toyota Camry $100,000 029-6334-D 10-19F April10, 2011 2002 Ford F-250 $100,000 Pick-Up Truck

Def. 's S.M.F. ~~ 3, 15-18. Policy Numbers 012-0919-A01-19P, 008-7061-A10-19E, and

029-6334-D10-19F constitute the "non-motorcycle policies," while Policy Number 007-

1073-B06-19C constitutes the "motorcycle policy."

As demonstrated in the table above, each policy insured a single vehicle, and

provided UM coverage with a per person coverage limit of $100,000. Id. at~~ 3, 7.

3 When initially issued, the terms of the policies were contained, inter alia, in the State

Farm Car Policy, Policy Form 9819A ("Policy Form 9819A"). !d. at~ 28. In 2011, State

Farm decided to modify Policy Form 9819A, and issued the new State Farm Car Policy

Booklet, Policy Form 9819B ("Policy Form 9819B"). Id. at~~ 11, 27, 37. At the time of

Mr. Galipeau's accident, the terms of the policies were contained, inter alia, in Policy

Form 9819B. !d. at~ 11. For the purposes of this dispute, the policies were the same

after the institution of Policy Form 9819B except for a new "anti-stacking" provision.

See id. at~~ 29-31.

The Estate demanded payment of $350,000 from State Farm, equaling the

aggregate of the UM coverage limit contained in each of the four State Farm policies, less

the $50,000 the Estate collected from the liability coverage of Mr. Mitton. Id. at~ 8.

State Farm paid $50,000 to the Estate under policy number 007-1073-B06-19C-the

policy issued for Mr. Galipeau's motorcycle-representing the difference between the

$100,000 in UM coverage provided by that policy and the $50,000 the Estate collected

from Mr. Mitton's liability coverage. !d. at~ 9. The Estate now seeks $300,000 in UM

coverage benefits under the non-motorcycle policies, which takes into account the

$100,000 already paid ($50,000 by State Farm and $50,000 by Mr. Mitton's liability

coverage). !d. at~ 10.

The policies under both Policy Form 9819A and B contained the following

pertinent provisions and definitions:

1) An other owned vehicle exclusion providing, in pertinent part that:

THERE IS NO COVERAGE ...

2. FOR AN INSURED WHO SUSTAINS BODILY INJURY:

4 a. WHILE OCCUPYING A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU OR ANY RESIDENT RELATIVE IF IT IS NOTYOURCARORANEWLY ACQUIRED CAR ... (Id. at~ 12; Def.'s Exhibits 1-4, Policy Form 9819B, Exclusions, p. 17, ~ 2.a.);

2) The definition of "Bodily Injury" in the non-motorcycle policies means "bodily injury to a person and ... death that results from it" (Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 13; Exhibits 2-4, Policy Form 9819B, Definitions, p. 4 );

3) The definition of "YOUR CAR" in the non-motorcycle policies means, "the vehicle shown under 'YOUR CAR' on the Declarations Page (Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 14; Exhibits 2-4, Policy Form 9819B, Definitions, p. 6) 2 ;

4) The definition of a "NEWLY ACQUIRED CAR" in the non-motorcycle policies to mean "a car newly owned by you." (Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 19; Exhibits 2-4, Policy Form 9819B, Definitions p. 4.); and

5) The definition of "CAR" in the non-motorcycle policies to mean "a land motor vehicle with four or more wheels ... " (!d.)

As noted, the pertinent change for purposes of this dispute between Policy Form

9819A and B is the addition of an anti-stacking clause in Policy Form 9819B. The anti-

stacking clause provides that:

If Other Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage Applies:

1. If uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage provided by this policy and one or more other vehicle policies issued to you or any resident relative by the State Farm Companies apply to the same bodily injury, then:

a. The Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage limits of such policies will not be added together to determine the most that may be paid; and

b. The maximum amount that may be paid from all such policies combined is the single highest applicable limit provided by any one of the policies. We may choose one or more policies from which to make payment.

2 The "cars" covered under the policies are identified in the table provided above

and in Def.'s S.M.F. ~~ 4, 15-18

5 Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 30; Def.'s Exhibits 1-4, Policy Form 9819B, If Other Uninsured Motor

Vehicle Coverage Applies, p. 18, ~ 1.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material

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

see also Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, ~ 4, 770 A.2d 653.) A "material fact"

is one that can affect the outcome of the case, and a genuine issue exists when there is

sufficient evidence for a fact finder to choose between competing versions of the fact.

Lougee Conservancy v. City-Mortgage, Inc., 2012 ME 103, ~11, 48 A.3d 774.

When the defendant moves for summary judgment, it should be granted when the

evidence favoring the plaintiff is insufficient to support a verdict as a matter oflaw.

Bouchard v. Am. Orthodontics, 661 A.2d 1143, 1144-45 (Me. 1995). On a motion for

summary judgment, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-

moving party. Farrington Owners' Assn. v. Conway Lake Resorts, 2005 ME 93, ~ 9, 878

A.2d 504.

B. The Other-Owned Vehicle Exclusion in the Three Non-Motorcycle Policies Bars Coverage for the Estate's Claim.

State Farm argues the non-motorcycle policies do not provide coverage for the

Estate's claims based on the other-owned vehicle exclusion clause because Mr. Galipeau

sustained "bodily injury" while occupying a car he owned, but did not constitute "your

car" or a "newly acquired car" as those terms are defined by the non-motorcycle policies.

The other-owned vehicle exclusion provides that there is no coverage for a policyholder

6 who sustains bodily injury while occupying a motor vehicle owned by the insured or any

resident relative if it is not "your car" or a "newly acquired car." Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 12;

Def.'s Exhibits 1-4, Policy Form 9819B, Exclusions, p. 17, ~ 2.a. State Farm argues that

similar "other-owned vehicle exclusions" have been upheld and enforced in Maine for

nearly thirty years. In support, State Farm cites:

Hare v. Lumbermens Mutual Cas. Co., 471 A.2d 1041, 1043 (Me. 1984) ("uninsured motorist coverage on one of a number of vehicles owned by an insured does not extend the benefit of such coverage, for no premium, to all other vehicles owned by that insured");

Brackett v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 486 A.2d 1188, 1190-91 (Me. 1985) (rejecting argument that once an insurer has paid a premium for uninsured motorist coverage, he is entitled to protection no matter where he is when injured by an uninsured motorist and finding other-owned vehicle exclusion did not violate 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2902);

Gross v. Green Mountain Ins. Co., 506 A.2d 1139, 1141-42 (Me. 1986) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer based on other-owned vehicle exclusion and finding that "uninsured motor coverage as required by [24-A M.R.S.A. §] 2902 may be limited to persons operating certain vehicles and does not require coverage for the insured in all situations");

Bear v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 519 A.2d 180, 182 (Me. 1986) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer based on other- owned vehicle exclusion where decedent owned, but did not insure vehicle she was in when killed);

Cash v. Green Mountain Ins. Co., Inc., 644 A.2d 456, 457 (Me. 1994) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer based on other-owned vehicle exclusion and explaining that the other-owned vehicle exclusion was "not clearly in violation of some well established rule of law");

Maurice v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 235 F.3d 7, 9-10 (1st Cir. 2000) ("[s]ince the motorcycle which the decedent was driving at the time of the accident was owned by him but insured under a separate policy, [the other-owned vehicle] exclusion, by its terms, avoids coverage for the appellant's claims"); and

Hall v. Patriot Mutual Ins. Co., 2007 ME 104, ~ 15, 942 A.2d 663 (Me. 2008) (holding that an "other-owned vehicle" exclusion "unambiguously applie[ d]" to preclude recovery by the wife of a deceased motorcyclist

7 under an automobile policy, where the decedent was killed while operating a motorcycle he owned but did not insure through the automobile policy).

Based on this authority, State Farm argues the other-owned vehicle exclusion in the non-

motorcycle policies apply and bar coverage for the Estate's claims.

The Estate does not dispute that on its face, the other-owned vehicle exclusion

applies to the facts of the case. Furthermore, without addressing all of the case law cited

by State Farm, the Estate recognizes that several Law Court opinions have upheld other-

owned vehicle exclusions.

The Estate, however, argues that the rationale behind the exclusion does not apply

in this case and that, as a result, the exclusion violates the public policy of24-A M.R.S. §

2902(1). In particular, the Estate claims that the rationale behind enforcing the exclusion

was laid out in Hare v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., which explained that "uninsured

motorist coverage on one of a number of vehicles owned by an insured does not extend

the benefits of such coverage, for no premium, to all other vehicles owned by that

insured." 471 A.2d 1041, 1043 (Me. 1984) (emphasis added by the Estate's Opposition

to State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment). Pointing to the "no premium" language, the Estate argues the rationale

enunciated in Hare does not apply in this case because Mr. Galipeau's motorcycle was

insured at the time of the accident under separate policies issued by State Farm, under

which the insured paid premiums. The Estate does not, however, explain how the

Galipeaus paid premiums under the non-motorcycle policies for the motorcycle when

those policies were not defined to include the motorcycle. Accordingly, the Galipeaus fit

8 squarely within the rationale adopting the other-owned vehicle exclusion because they

did not pay a premium for the motorcycle under the non-motorcycle policies.

The Estate also argues that while Law Court opinions have upheld the other-

owned vehicle exclusion, there is only one Maine case directly on point, Gross v. Green

Mountain Ins. Co., 506 A.2d 1139. The Estate argues the Court should not follow Gross

because after that case was decided in 1986, there has been a national trend towards

finding the other-owned vehicle exclusion unenforceable. In particular, the Estate

contends that courts in a majority of jurisdictions have found the other-owned vehicle

exclusion, also referred to as the "household exclusion," void unless specifically

authorized under a relevant uninsured/underinsured motorist statute. See 1 Alan I. Widiss

& Jeffrey E. Thomas. Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance, § 4.19 at pp.

201-14 (3d ed. 2005) (citing and summarizing cases from multiple jurisdictions-not

including Maine-that reject the other-owned vehicle exclusion unless specifically

authorized by statute); Jane Boeth Jones, J.D., Uninsured Motorist Coverage: Validity of

Exclusion of Injuries Sustained by Insured While Occupying "Owned" Vehicle Not

Insured by Policy, 30 A.L/R/4th 172, at [3b] (same).

The Estate also cites to Justice Silver's concurrence in Pease v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. as evidence that the Law Court is moving towards the majority position

rejecting the other-owned vehicle exclusion. 2007 ME 134, ~~ 12-17, 931 A.2d 1072. In

Justice Silver's concurrence he opined that a "regular use" exclusion-whereby an

insured could not recover for accidents in another vehicle if the vehicle was provided for

the insured's regular use-violated the uninsured motorist statute because it was contrary

to 24-A M.R.S. § 2902. !d. at~ 13. This was because section 2902 did not reference any

9 exclusions and the Law Court had explained that it would not sanction reductions in

coverage not provided for by the legislature. Id. Justice Silver went on to explain that

the Law Court has never upheld any exclusion to UM coverage "outside some variation

on the owned-uninsured exception," i.e. the other-owned vehicle exclusion, and went on

to cite examples where courts have held insurers may not limit UM coverage through UM

policies. Id. at~ 14. Justice Silver noted that opinions in other states have found the

"regular use" exclusion invalid because UM coverage is "portable under all

circumstances." Id. at~ 15 (citations omitted). In other words, UM coverage is available

"at all times and under all circumstances when a named insured sustains injury caused by

accident as a result of an uninsured automobile." Id. (quoting Bilbrey v. Am. Auto. Ins.

Co., 495 S.W.2d 375, 376 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973). Justice Silver found this reasoning

consistent with the policy and purpose of Maine's UM statute and found construing the

UM statute broadly to prohibit such exclusions follows the legislative intent to close

coverage gaps rather than endorse patchwork policies that leave responsible, insured

consumers without the protection they have paid for. Id. at~ 16.

While the rationale behind Justice Silver's concurrence arguably supports

invalidating other-owned vehicle exclusions, the concurrence specifically notes that the

Law Court has accepted the other-owned vehicle exclusion. Id. at 14. The concurrence

did not challenge or critique the Law Court's prior recognition of the other-owned

vehicle exclusion. See id. In addition, the Law Court issued Hall subsequent to its

opinion in Pease. As noted, Hall upheld the application of the other-owned vehicle

exclusion. 2007 ME 104, ~ 15, 942 A.2d 663. Furthermore, the Hall court noted that

the Law Court has "upheld policy exclusions similar to the [other-owned vehicle

10 exclusions at issue in this case] against arguments that the exclusions violated insurance

statutes. !d. at~ 11 (citing Cash v. Green Mountain Ins. Co., 644 A.2d at 457-58; Bear v.

US Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 519 A.2d at 181-82; and Gross v. Green Mountain Ins.

Co., 506 A.2d at 1141-42. Accordingly, while the national trend may hold the other-

owned vehicle exclusion void unless specifically authorized by statute, Maine law is clear

that the other-owned vehicle exclusion in the non-motorcycle policies is valid.

Since the other-owned vehicle exclusion applies, the evidence is clear that the

non-motorcycle policies do not provide coverage for the Estate's claims. This is because

Mr. Galipeau sustained his bodily injury while occupying a motor vehicle that was not

"your car" under the non-motorcycle policies. See Def.'s S.M.F. ~~ 12-14, 19, Def.'s

Exhibits 2-4 Policy Form 9819B, Definitions, pp. 4, 6, Exclusions, p. 17, ~I. a. As a

result, the court need not address the parties' argument regarding the effect of the anti-

stacking provision because those arguments are premised on coverage existing under the

non-motorcycle policies. Def.'s S.M.F. ~ 30; Def.'s Exhibits 1-4, Policy Form 9819B, If

Other Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage Applies, p. 18, ~ 1. Accordingly, the court

grants State Farm's motion for summary judgment and denies the Estate's motion for

partial summary judgment.

III. Conclusion

The other-owned vehicle exclusion in the non-motorcycle policies bars coverage

for bodily injury that occurs while occupying a motor vehicle owned by the insured or

any resident relative if it is not "your car" or a "newly acquired car." Def.'s Exhibits 1-4,

Policy Form 9819B, Exclusions, p. 17, ~ 2.a. Maine courts have to date upheld other-

owned vehicle exclusions similar to the ones in the non-motorcycle policies. While Mr.

11 Galipeau may be correct that law in Maine and elsewhere may moving in a different

direction, current Maine law as understood by this Court does not support his position.

Because Mr. Galipeau sustained his bodily injury while occupying a motor vehicle that

was not "your car" under the non-motorcycle policies, the non-motorcycle policies do not

provide coverage for Mr. Galipeau's injuries. Finally, since there is no coverage under

the non-motorcycle policies, the court need not address the parties' arguments regarding

the anti-stacking provisions as those arguments are premised on coverage existing under

said policies. Accordingly, the court grants State Farm's motion for summary judgment

against the Estate's Complaint and denies the Estate's motion for partial summary

judgment.

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this

Order by reference in the docket.

Dated: December 30,2014

12 JUDITH M GALIPEAU - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT 493 RIDGE ROAD KENNEBEC, ss. WARREN ME 04864 Docket No AUGSC-CV-2013-00100 At' ey for: JUDITH M GALIPEAU J w~~LIAM DRUARY JR - REMOVAL MARDEN DUBORD BERNIER & STEVENS DOCKET RECORD 44 ELM STREET PO BOX 708 WATERVILLE ME 04901-0708

Attorney for: JUDITH M GALIPEAU STEVEN D SILIN - RETAINED BERMAN & SIMMONS PA 129 LISBON STREET PO BOX 961 LEWISTON ME 04243-0961

vs STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO J WILLIAM DRUARY JR - RETAINED MARDEN DUBORD BERNIER & STEVENS 44 ELM STREET PO BOX 708 WATERVILLE ME 04901-0708

Fi Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: CONTRACT Fil~·~ Date: 04/22/2013

Docket Events: 04/22/2013 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 04/22/2013

04/22/2013 Party(s} : JUDITH M GALIPEAU ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 04/22/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: STEVEN D SILIN

04/29/2013 Party(s}: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 04/23/2013

05/23/2013 Party(s}: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 05/23/2013 Defendant's Attorney: J WILLIAM DRUARY JR

05/23/2013 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 05/23/2013 M MICHAELA MURPHY JUSTICE I

ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/23/2013 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 01/23/2014

05/23/2013 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 05/23/2013 M MICHAELA MURPHY JUSTICE I

Page 1 of 5 Printed on: 01/06/2015 AUGSC-CV-2013-00100 DOCKET RECORD

05 1 2013 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 05/23/2013 Defendant's Attorney: J WILLIAM DRUARY JR

06/25/2013 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 06/19/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: STEVEN D SILIN MEDIATION WITH ELIZABETH GERMANI, 8/5/13.

08/01/2013 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU LETTER - FROM PARTY FILED ON 07/31/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT H FURBISH PARTIES AGREE TO ADR EXTENSION, TIME TO COMPLETE BY 11/19/13.

08/21/2013 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED ON 08/21/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT H FURBISH MOTION FOR STAY OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES

08/23/2013 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - OTHER MOTION GRANTED ON 08/22/2013 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE MOTION FOR STAY OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES STAYED UNTIL 90 DAYS FOLLOWING COURT'S RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

03. '2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 03/20/2014 Defendant's Attorney: J WILLIAM DRUARY JR W/ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND EXHIBITS 1 TO 4, AFFIDAVIT OF PETER YEROU

03/20/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION FOR LEAVE FILED ON 03/20/2014 Defendant's Attorney: J WILLIAM DRUARY JR TO INCREASE PAGE LIMITS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

04/02/2014 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 04/01/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT H FURBISH PLTF'S UNOPPOSED, TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION SJ

04/09/2014 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 04/09/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

04/30/2014 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - MOTION PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDG FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 04/29/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: STEVEN D SILIN MEMORANDUM IN SUPPRORT, SOMF, AFFIDAVIT OF JUDITY GALIPEAU

04/30/2014 Party(s) : JUDITH M GALIPEAU OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 04/29/2014 Page 2 of 5 Printed on: 01/06/2015 AUGSC-CV-2013-00100 DOCKET RECORD

Plaintiff's Attorney: STEVEN D SILIN OPPOSING SOMF AND OPPOSING MEMORANDUM

05/06/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 05/05/2014 Defendant's Attorney: J WILLIAM DRUARY JR AGREED, TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SJ

05/09/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 05/09/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY I JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL STATE FARM'S DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION SJ EXTENDED TO 5/20/14.

05/14/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION FOR LEAVE GRANTED ON 05/14/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY I JUSTICE

05/20/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 05/20/2014 Defendant's Attorney: GREGORY M PATIENT DEFT'S REPLY TO PLTF'S OBJECTION TO DEFT'S SOMF AND RESPONSE TO PLTF'S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS

05/30/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 05/22/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: GREGORY M PATIENT DEFT'S REPLY TO PLTF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFT'S SOMF AND AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLTF'S SOAF, AFFIDAVIT OF PETER YEROU (COPY) 5/30/14-0RIGINAL AFFIDAVIT FILED.

05/30/2014 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 05/23/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT H FURBISH PLTF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLYT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SJ

05/30/2014 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 05/30/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY I JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLTF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SJ DUE 6/17/14

05/30/2014 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULED FOR 07/08/2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 2 M MICHAELA MURPHY I JUSTICE

05/30/2014 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE SENT ON 05/30/2014

06/10/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 06/09/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: J WILLIAM DRUARY JR CONSENTED TO, TO CONTINUE 7/8/14 HEARING ON MOTION SJ

Page 3 of 5 Printed on: 01/06/2015 AUGSC-CV-2013-00100 DOCKET RECORD

06. '2014 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 06/16/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: STEVEN D SILIN PLTF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SJ, RESPONSE TO DEFT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLTF'S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS, AFFIDAVIT OF JUDITH GALIPEAU

06/17/2014 Party(s): STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 06/17/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL TO BE SCHEDULED NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING DATE AFTER 7/13/14.

06/17/2014 HEARING- MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONTINUED ON 06/17/2014 TO NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING DATE AFTER 7/13/14.

06/24/2014 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULED FOR 09/03/2014 at 09:00 a.m. in Room No. 2 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE

06/24/2014 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE SENT ON 06/24/2014

06/24/2014 HEARING - MOTION PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDG SCHEDULED FOR 09/03/2014 at 09:00 a.m. in Room No. 2 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE

06/24/2014 HEARING - MOTION PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDG NOTICE SENT ON 06/24/2014

09/03/2014 HEARING - MOTION PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDG HELD ON 09/03/2014 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE Defendant's Attorney: GREGORY M PATIENT Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT H FURBISH TAPE 1897, INDEX 3138-4363

09/03/2014 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT HELD ON 09/03/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE Defendant's Attorney: GREGORY M PATIENT Plaintiff's Attorney: ROBERT H FURBISH TAPE 1897, INDEX 3138-4363

09/03/2014 CASE STATUS - DECISION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 09/03/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE MOTION SJ AND MOTION PARTIAL SJ

01/06/2015 Party(s) : STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO MOTION - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED ON 12/30/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

01/06/2015 Party(s): JUDITH M GALIPEAU MOTION - MOTION PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDG DENIED ON 12/30/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

01/06/2015 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 12/30/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE Page 4 of 5 Printed on: 01/06/2015 AUGSC-CV-2013-00100 DOCKET RECORD

ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL AND REPOSITORIES ORDER ON DEFT'S MOTION FOR SJ AND PLTF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SJ

01/06/2015 FINDING - JUDGMENT DETERMINATION ENTERED ON 12/30/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY I JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

ORDER - SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED ON 12/30/2014 M MICHAELA MURPHY IJUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Judgment entered for STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO and against JUDITH M GALIPEAU.

01/06/2015 FINDING - FINAL JUDGMENT CASE CLOSED ON 01/06/2015

A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk

Page 5 of 5 Printed on: 01/06/2015