Gendron v. Citizens Insurance Company

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 22, 2019
• Docket: ANDcv-18-20
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

( (

STATE OF MAINE RECEIVED&. FILED SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION FEB Z 2 2019 DOCKET NO. CV-18-20 DONNA GENDRON, ANDRosJ_: G(;,:' ·'. j Plaintiff t SUPER I01 COuf:.;; ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S V. ) MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ) CHASEN HOLMES AS CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY ) DEFENDANT, IN NAME ONLY, d /b / a THE HANOVER ) FOR TRIAL PURPOSES INSURANCE GROUP, ) ) Defendant. )

Before the Court is Defendant Citizens Insurance Company d /b / a The Hanover

Insurance Group's ("Hanover") Motion to Substitute Chasen Holmes as Defendant, In

Name Only, For Trial Purposes. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

Hanover is Ms. Gendron' s underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage insurer. On

March 1, 2018, Ms. Gendron filed this lawsuit against Hanover, claiming Hanover

breached its contract with her when it refused to pay UIM benefits following a vehicle

collision between Ms. Gendron and Chasen Holmes. Ms. Gendron and Mr. Holmes have

executed a settlement agreement, and Mr. Holmes is not a party to this action. With this

motion, Hanover requests to have its identity substituted for that of Mr. Holmes at trial,

expressing concerns over prejudice and arguing that trying the case with Hanover as the

named defendant would unnecessarily inject the issue of insurance into the trial. Hanover

also argues that there is no justiciable controversy between itself and Ms. Gendron and

instead the controversy centers only on Mr. Holmes's negligent conduct.

The Court finds there is a justiciable controversy between Hanover and Ms.

Gendron. Ms. Gendron asserted a claim for payment pursuant to her UIM policy issued

by Hanover, and Hanover denied her claim. Ms. Gendron thereafter filed suit claiming

Hanover breached its contract with her when it failed to pay her benefits under the UIM

1 of 3 policy. While Hanover attempts to characterize this case principally as a negligence

action against Mr. Holmes, the fact remains that the case to be tried is a breach of contract

claim against Hanover. This is an active case or controversy and is therefore justiciable.

Moreover, while Hanover has directed the Court to some precedent for the

substitution it requests, the proper treatment of UIM coverage insurers at trial is far from

settled both within Maine and among other jurisdictions. Compare King v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 850 A2d 428,435 (Md. App. 2004) (finding trial court abused its discretion

in permitting UIM insurer to proceed at trial anonymously) and Pinette v. Patrons Oxford

Ins. Co., No. CV-15-211, Me. Super. LEXIS 187, at *3 (Mar. 23, 2017) (denying UIM

insurer's motion to substitute its identity with name of tortfeasor at trial) with Bardis v.

First Trenton Ins. Co., 971 A.2d 1062, 1068-69 (N.J. 2009) (rejecting rule compelling insurer

in UIM trial to be identified but leaving to trial court's discretion the determination of

propriety of concealing insurer's identity) and Wakefield v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., No.

---K:ENSC"CV-'2013"297-(Me.--Super. --Ct.,- Ken; -Cty-:; Oct.-3,--2014) (granting UIM--insurer-'s­

motion to substitute named defendant at trial); see also Smith v. Summers, 334 F. Supp. 3d

339, 343-45 (D.D.C. 2018) (denying UIM insurer's motion to conceal from jury the

contractual relationship between insurer and plaintiff).

Here, there is no relationship between Hanover and Mr. Holmes. Ms. Gendron has

already settled her claim with Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Holmes likely has a reasonable

expectation that as to him, the matter is resolved. Moreover, insurance companies are

routinely sued for breach of contract and expected to answer and defend in their own

names. Pinette, No. CV-15-211, Me. Super. LEXIS 187, at *3 (Mar. 23, 2017). The Court can

address any risk of prejudice with proper instructions to the jury. Id. at *4. Finally, the

Court is concerned that concealing Hanover's identity would deny the jury its right to

2 of 3 ( (

know the identities of the parties to the case. See Tucker v. McQuery, 736 N.E.2d 574, 576

(Ohio 1999) (citing 2 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE§ 282a, at 169-69 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1979)).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference

pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).

Dated: :2/o7,;i.//9 ------'=-=,J'-=-'--/r-'----­ M

3 of 3