Ganneston Construction Corp. v. Surface Cleaning Experts, Inc.

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: July 29, 2014
• Docket: CUMcv-13-192
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

l NI E RE D AUG o 6 ZD14

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CMLACTION DOCKET NO. CV-13-192 IDW -Cl1M- 01-Jq-14- GANNESTON CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER

SURF ACE CLEANING EXPERTS, STP.TE OF WlA!NE Cumberl~nd, Sb, Cl~rk's Office INC., d/b/aAUDETTE/S.C.E. Inc. JUL 2 8 2014 Defendant RECEiVED Defendant's insurer, Maine Street America Group IN ational Grange Mutual

Insurance Co. (MSA), has moved to intervene in this action for the sole purpose of being

heard with respect to the verdict form to be submitted to the jury. MSA contends that,

- depending on the basis of any recovery against defendant Audette, MSA may or may

not have an obligation to indemnify Audette.

MSA may not intervene as of right. Donna C. v. Kalamares, 485 A.2d 222, 223-24

(Me. 1984). To the extent that MSA is merely requesting that the jury verdict form be

sufficiently specific to illuminate the coverage issues, the Donna C. decision, 485 A.2d at

225, and the Second Circuit's opinion in Restor-A-Dent Dental Laboratories Inc. v.

Certified Alloy Products Inc., 725 F.2d 871, 877 (2d Cir 1984), indicate that permissive

intervention may be appropriate.

To the extent that MSA is only requesting that the jury make specific findings on

issues which the jury in this action will necessarily have to consider anyway, the court

will allow permissive intervention. Contrary to the arguments of the parties, MSA' s

motion to intervene is not too late because MSA only wishes to be heard on the jury verdict form and MSA's role would not need to be disclosed to the jury and would not

interfere with the trial.

The court has absolutely no intention, however, of asking the jury to make any

findings or consider any issues that the jury would not otherwise have to consider and

decide in adjudicating Ganneston' s claims against Audette. MSA has not submitted the

relevant insurance policy, and it is not clear that the coverage issues on which MSA

wishes to be heard are issues which the jury will necessarily have to consider in order to

decide whether Audette is liable for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or

negligence. By way of example, if MSA is seeking separate jury findings on each of

Ganneston' s three causes of action, the court will entertain MSA' s request. If MSA is

seeking any fact-finding not strictly necessary to decide Ganneston's claims, it is

extraordinarily doubtful that the court will agree.

When the case appears on a trial list, therefore, counsel for MSA shall serve and

file its proposed jury verdict form 10 days in advance of the first date in the trial term.

The entry shall be:

The motion to intervene is granted to the limited extent set forth above. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: July ,2.:) , 2014

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior-Court

2 CLERK OF COURTS _Cumberland County 20 1 :wbury Street, Ground Floor Poi:tland, ME 041(}1

DOUGLAS STEERE ESQ GETMAN SCHULTHESS & STEERE PA 1838 ELM STREET MANCHESTER NH 03104 31'\-t-e r-v Q f\o r ~ (?\\\-a \<"'.e/

.Portland, M.E 04101

DONA FEENEY ESQ FEENEY ROUSFEAU & FRAAS PLLC 225 BRIDGE STREET MANCHESTER NH 03104 v~e."d C.."~ s ~~t ('e./

• I

PAUL KOZIELL ESQ ---y \ ~ !"'\-\ ' ~ 5 t;o,

MORRISC1lll GROUP PO BQ} ~~or0'