State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.
This text of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co. (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.) 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. I . CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-05-333 /
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO.,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
ONEBEACON INSURANCE CO., D O N A L D L. GARBRECHT LAW LIBRARY Defendant.
Before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant
OneBeacon Insurance Co. and a cross motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff
State Farm Insurance Co.
The case presents the question of whether OneBeacon had a duty to defend
Maurice Scribner in a case brought against Scribner by Pittsfield Bowling Center
allegng that Scribner was liable for negligence and breach of contract in connection
with a fire that occurred in December 2001. The facts have been stipulated.
The first issue is whether OneBeacon had a duty to defend Scribner because,
although it is undisputed that Scribner was not in fact an employee of Pittsfield
Bowling, Pittsfield Bowling's complaint did not exclude the possibility that Scribner
was an employee and therefore might have qualified as an insured under Pittsfield
Bowling's policy with a OneBeacon subsidiary. The complaint in Pittsfield Bowling's
action against Scribner is annexed as Exhibit A to the Joint Statement of Material Facts.'
' The complaint alleges that Pittsfield Bowling "retained" Scribner to perform repairs to Pittsfield's bowling lanes, that Scribner welded braces to the pin-setting machine, that Scribner's welding activity negligently caused a fire, and that Scribner also breached a contractual obligation to perform the welding work in a workmanlike fashion. SMF Ex. A 9191 4-5,9,13,17. The relevant insurance policy is annexed as Exhbit B to that Statement.
According to State Farm, it should prevail under the comparison test used in
determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend. However, the court concludes
that only actual insureds - as opposed to persons who might possibly be insured - are
entitled to the benefit of the comparison test analysis. See Boise Cascade Corp. Inc. v.
Reliance National Indemnitv Co., 99 F.Supp.2d 87, 99 (D. Me. 2000). The court therefore
rejects State Farm's argument that the court should find a duty to defend in tkus case
under an "expansive" reading of Mullen v. Daniels, 598 A.2d 451, 453 (Me. 1991). See
State Farm Memorandum of Law at 4.
OneBeacon has raised additional arguments that it contends also eliminates any
duty to defend on its part in tlus case. In view of the foregoing ruling, the court does not
need to reach those arguments.
The entry shall be:
Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The clerk is directed to
incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).
Dated: September ZI ,2006.
-Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court : COLIRTS i d County IX287 e 041 12-0287
THOMAS MARJERISON ESQ PO BOX 4600 PORTLAND ME 04112
: COURTS ~d County IX287 e 041 12-0287
MICHAEL RAIR ESQ PO BOX 2580 BANGOR ME 04402-2580
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-fire-cas-co-v-onebeacon-ins-co-mesuperct-2006.