Monaghan v. Blackston
This text of Monaghan v. Blackston (Monaghan v. Blackston) 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
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CNILACTION Docket No. CV -10-533
JOHN MONAGHAN, 1' 't!J Plaintiff
v. ORDER
TARA BLACKSTON,
Defendant
'RECcJ Dj Before the court is defendant's motion to reduce the verdict for plaintiff in this
case by the amount plaintiff previously recovered in a settlement with his own
insurance carrier, Concord Group Insurance Co., on a claim for benefits under his
underinsured motorist coverage. The jury verdict for plaintiff was $4,548. Monaghan's
prior settlement with his carrier was for $8,000, so granting defendant's motion would
reduce plaintiff's recovery to zero.
There is logic to defendant's position that if a jury has rendered a verdict
determining that Monaghan's total damages caused by the OCtober 23, 2007 accident
total $4,548, and if Monaghan has already received a settlement in excess of that
amount, he would receive a double recovery if he now collects $4,548 from Blackston.
There is also logic to Monaghan's position that he obtained and paid for uninsured
motorist coverage, and the settlement from his carrier therefore could be classified as
coming from a collateral source.
The court does not need to explore these issues further, however, because it
concludes that in this situation the Law Court would follow Thurston v. 3K Kamper Ko.
Inc., 482 A.2d 837 (Me. 1984). In Thurston, the Law Court concluded that 14 M.R.S. § 163 did not require a setoff of settlement amounts received from parties who were not
found to have caused the injury. See 482 A.2d at 840, 842. In reaching that conclusion
the Law Court looked only to the language of section 163 and implicitly rejected any
theory that a setoff should be applied under the common law to avoid a double
recovery.
Similarly in this case, section 163 does not provide for a setoff because the
personal injury here was not, in the words of that statute, "caused by 2 or more
persons." It was caused solely by Blackston. Monaghan's underinsured carrier, rather
than causing the injury, merely provided a contractual avenue for recovery if Blackston
was underinsured. As it turned out, Concord would not have had to pay any money
under the jury's verdict because Blackston was adequately insured for the amount of
the verdict. As in Thurston, Monaghan is entitled to retain Concord's settlement
without suffering any diminution of his recovery from Blackston.
The court understands that Blackston previously made a Rule 68 offer of
judgment that exceeded the verdict amount. Under Rule 68, therefore, Monaghan is
entitled to costs only up to the date of the offer, and Blackston is entitled to costs from
the date of the offer through the trial.
If Monaghan served a notice of claim pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B(S) that
would entitle him to prejudgment interest from a date prior to the filing of his
complaint, he shall provide that to the clerk's office within 10 days.
The entry shall be:
Defendant's motion to reduce the verdict is denied. Pursuant to the jury's verdict, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $4,548. Prejudgment interest shall run at the rate of 3.41% unless plaintiff demonstrates within 10 days that he is entitled to a different rate of interest pursuant to a notice of claim served prior to 2010. Post judgment interest shall run at 6.12%. Both parties may file applications for costs within 10 days.
2 The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).
Dated: February L , 2012
Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court
3 JOHN MONAGHAN JR VS TARA J BLACKSTON UTN:AOCSsr -2010-0111608 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2010-00533 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MONAGHAN, JR ~P~L________~R~T~N~D~~1~0~/~2~1~/_2~0_1~0
03 0000007564 ' ,: WALL JOHN ,. <: 95 EXCHANGE ST PO BOX 7046 PORTLAND ME 04112-7046 F ~~T~ARA~~J_B~L~A~C~K~S~T~O~N~---------------------- ~D~E~F________~R~T~N~D~~0~9~/~1~2~/~2~0~1~1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Monaghan v. Blackston, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monaghan-v-blackston-mesuperct-2012.