Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Handler
This text of Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Handler (Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Handler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
:'1 jT,z.-- '. M A I 3 E STATE OF h4AINE ; ..- sk SUPERIOR COURT "'!."RF";LANiJ, Y O + IQLI I SS CUMBERLAND, ss. C ~ E R K ' S ~ J F F I C E CIVILACTION Docket No. C d V 3 7 8 ;ov-,7 IN1 FEB - 8 A 1:5b T@ - L'J' MIDDLESEX MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
ELEANOR B. HANDLER M.D. and DONALD L. GARBRECHT ELEANOR B. HANDLER M.D. P.A., LAW LlPRARv
Defendants. MAY 1 6 2007
Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company (Middlesex) insured the defendants
.. . coverage for "oral or written under a Businessowners Liability Policy which provides
publication of material that slanders or libels a person . . . ,"but excludes coverage for
injury "arising out of oral or written publication of material if done by or at the
direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity."
When the defendants' business relationship to share space, services and
personnel with August C. Schwenk W1.D. deteriorated and dissolved, Dr. Handler sent
several letters to doctors and hospital authorities in the Belfast area. In the letters she
variously described Dr. Schwenk's conduct as egregious, unprofessional, unethical,
actionable and illegal.
In a response to a lawsuit by Dr. Handler lawsuit, based on the dissolution of
their business relationship, Dr. Schwenk asserted a counterclaim for defamation.
Middlesex appeared and defended Handler on the counterclaim.
By agreement, the parties took their case to arbitration where the arbitrator
found for Dr. Schwenk and awarded h m $30,000 on the counterclaim. The issue here is
the extent of indemnification by Middlesex. In his modified award, the arbitrator found that Dr. Handler's statements were
"defamation per se." In the original findings of fact and conclusions, the arbitrator
found Handler's letters in question to be "clearly defamatory in nature." 9 37. He further found that Dr. Handler admitted "all of the statements and that they "were
made with the intent to harm defendant's good name and reputation . . . they were
more than statements of mere opinion." 37(4). The arbitrator also found that Dr.
Schwenk was unable to quantify his loss of income from the per se defamatory
published letters and noted that he was not required to do so. Citing, Farrell v. Kramer,
193 A.2d 561 (Me. 1963) and Xippert v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82 (Me. 1986). He awarded
$30,000 for damages "as a result of the defamatory statements." Subsequent to the
filing of the decision, Middlesex paid $15,000 of the award. Middlesex asserts that
although Dr. Schwenk was damaged by Handler's statements, Dr. Handler is not
protected for calling Schwenk's actions "illegal" because at her deposition she agreed
they were not illegal and coverage is not available for a statement made "with
knowledge of its falsity."
Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment.
Notwithstanding Handler's statement of illegality as defamatory, the arbitrator
did not specify that any part of the award was or was not based on particular
statements. mddlesex's unilateral decision to apportion the award is without basis in
law or fact.
The court finds, based on undisputed facts that Middlesex has not demonstrated
any basis to support a division of the award as they have done. The burden of proving
allocation of damages between covered and non-covered claims is on the insurer. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 54 (1" Cir. 2001). The insurer
may not meet this burden by engaging in speculation as to what the fact finder was thinking when he returned a general verdict. Lavender v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 1979
Ohio App. LEXIS 10921.
In Maine the Law Court has also decided that the burden to apportion or allocate
damages rests on the defendant, or it this case upon Middlesex, as the party asserting
that it is responsible for only a portion of the award. See, Lovely v. Allstate insurance Co.,
658 A.2d 1091 (Me. 1995). Since Middlesex has not met its burden of proving allocation
of damages, summary judgment is appropriate declaring that Middlesex must
indemnify Dr. Handler for the full amount of the award.
The clerk will make the following entry as the Order and Judgment of the court:
A. Plaintiff Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
B. Defendants/Counterclaim-PlaintiffsEleanor B. Handler M.D. and Eleanor B. Handler M.D. P.A. Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
C. The clerk will enter judgment for defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 as the balance to be paid on the arbitration award, plus interest and costs as allowed by statute and rule.
D. No attorneys' fees are awarded.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 7,2007
Justice, Superior ~o;rt M I D D L E S E X MUTUAL ASSUKANCE COMI'ANY PI,AI N'I' I Is'F SUPPlR LOII COURT CIJMHEIILAND , ss . A t t o r n e y f o r : MIDDI,I.:SEX MIJ'I'IJAL A S S I J l A N C E (:OMIIANY Docket. No PORSC-CV-2005- 0 0 3 5 8 J O H N WHI'I'MAN - RETAINEII 0 6 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 5 R I C H A R D S O N WHITMAN LARGE & BAI)(;NR 4 5 5 CONGRESS S T , SUTTE 9 0 0 DOCKET RECORD P O BOX 9 5 4 5 PORTLAND ME 0 4 1 1 2 - 9 5 4 5
VS ELEANOR I! HANDLER MD - I)EFKNI)ANr1'
Attorney tor: ELEANOII H IIANI)I,T I< MI) CHARLES G I L B E R T I11 - W L 1 ' t I I ) I ~ W N 0 4 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 6 GILBERT & GREIF 8 2 COLUMl3IA S T P O BOX 2 3 3 9 BANGOR MN 0 4 4 0 2 2 3 3 9
Attorney Eor: EL1:ANOR B IIANI)IJI~:II MI) J U L I E FARR - RE'I'AINED 0 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 0 6 GILBERT & C K E I F 8 2 COLUMHlA S T P O BOX 2.339 BANGOR ME 0 4 4 0 2 - 2 3 3 9
ELEANOR I? HANDLER MU P A I)b~171~NI~~I'
Attorney f o r . ELEANOR B HANDIJER MD P A CHARLES (;I LBER'1' I LT W I'I'II1)IIAWN 04/1 9 / 2 0 0 6 GILBER'I' & GREIF 8 2 COLUMnTA Srl' PO BOX 2 3 3 9 BANGOR MI< 0 4 4 0 % 7 3 3 9
Attorney for: ELEANOR B IIANI)LEI< MI) L'A J U L I E FAI F i l i n g D o c u m e n t : COMPLATN'I' M i r l o r C a s e T y p e : UECLAlln'l'ORY JUDGMENT F i l i n g Date: 0 6 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 5 Docket Events: 06/14/2005 F T I j I N G I)OCUMb>NrI' COMI'LAl.NrT F I L I 3 I ) ON 0 6 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 5 1)ECLAIIATORY JIJ1)C;MISN'I' W r'rI~I KrTA(:FIk:I) KXHI B I T ' S A - F (JW) 0 6 / 1 4/ 2 0 0 5 P a r t y (S ) : MIUULISSI Printed on: 02/12/200'?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Handler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlesex-mut-assurance-co-v-handler-mesuperct-2007.