Wisinski v. Pawtucket Mutual Insurance

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUhCBERLAND, ss crvIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05-135

J

-

t . '

" ,r

,:! ; ,*~. ! ~ ,i j

,: id:)

-,,c:2

1. r-

*

CHRISTOPHER WISINSKI,

*

Plaintiff *

*

ORDER

PAWTUCKET MUTUAL * INSURANCE, *

*

Defendant *

*

This case comes before the Court on Defendant Pawtucket's Motion for Summary Judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 23,2000, Plaintiff Mrisinski was injured in a motor vehcle 1 accident with Tammi Bly. Ms. Bly (the "tortfeasor") had insurance coverage I totaling $150,000.00. Plaintiff collected the full $150,000. At the time of the 1 accident, Plaintiff was insured by Defendant. ~efendant'spolicy provided I Uninsured Motorist Insurance ("UMI") to the extent of $50,000 per person. On 1 March 7,2005, Plaintiff served Defendant with a complaint seelung damages based on the assertion that the tortfeasor was an underinsured motorist under the UMI provision of the policy.

Plaintiff agrees with Defendant's rendition of the facts. The dispute arises around the interpretation of the UMI provision of the policy.

DISCUSSION

1 The issue is whether the tortfeasor in the automobile accident was underinsured, thus tnggering Plaintiff's UMI coverage. Defendant claims it is entitled to summary judgment because the tortfeasor was not an underinsured motorist pursuant to Defendant's policy. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because the tortfeasor was an underinsured motorist pursuant to the UMI provision. As such, Plaintiff asserts that he can recover for injuries not sufficiently covered by the tortfeasor, up to $50,000.

'This Court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party "to determine whether the partiesf statements of material facts and the referenced record material reveal a genuine issue of material fact." Rogers v. Jackson, 2002 ME 140, 5,804 A.2d 379,380.

Maine's underi~~sured vehicle statute defines an "underinsured motor

vehicle" as "a motor vehicle for which coverage is provided, but in amounts less than the mirumum limits for bodily injury liability insurance provided for under the motorist's financial responsibility laws of this State or less than the limits of the Injured party's uninsured vehicle coverage." 24-A M.R.S.A. 5 2902(1) (2000); see York 172s. CO.ofhle., Inc. v. Bowden, 2004 ME 112, ql 6 855 A.2d 1157, 1159. Notwithstanding this statute, "there exists no indication of legislative intent to ensure coverage when and to the extent that the tortfeasor, in fact, has insurance." Levilze v. State Farm Mzctz~alAtitornobile lnstrrance Co., 2004 ME 33, ¶ 11, 843 A.2d 24, 28.

The amount of coverage determines whether a vehicle is underinsured.

Mllllen v. Liberty Mut. 111s.Co., 589 A.2d 1275, 1276-77 (Me. 1993). Simply put, a vehicle is underinsured when the tortfeasor's policy limits are less than the injured party's UMI policy limits. York, 2004 ME 112, ¶¶ 7, 8, 855 A.2d at 1159.

In Leviize, the tortfeasor's insurance policy covered u p to a maximum of $50,000 per person. 2004 ME 33, ¶ 11, 843 A.2d at 28. The injured party's UWII policy covered up to $100,000 per person. Id. Furthermore, the injured party's damages totaled $100,000. 1d. Therefore, because the tortfeasor's coverage was $50,000 less than the injured party's Uh4I coverage, the Law Court held that the tortfeasor was "underinsured" in the amount of $50,000. Id.

Plaintiff does not analyze whether the tortfeasor was underinsured pursuant to his UMI policy; rather, he relies on Rnybutt Coizstrtrction Corp. v. Coirzi7zei.cial Uizioiz 17zstr rarzce Corrzpn~zy,455 A.2d 914 (Me. 1983), to argue that, as a matter of contract construction, Defendant can not use one section of the contract to deny a benefit bestowed in another section.' Specifically, he contends that the definition of an underinsured vehicle in Part C of the policy, which mirrors the statute, conflicts with later provisions in Part C that limit recovery to $50,000 and prohibiting duplicate recovery.

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff's argument does not address the question of whether the tortfeasor was in fact an underinsured motorist. An affirmative answer to that question is the gateway to the UMI provision. Only then can Plaintiff engage in an analysis of the limits of recovery or the prohibition of dublicate recovery.

In this case, Defendant's analysis is correct. The tortfeasor's policy limit is $150,000. Plaintiff's UMI coverage is $50,000. Therefore, according to Defendant's Uh4I policy and 24-A h4.R.S.A. 2902(1), the tortfeasor was not

'The issue in Baybutt was whether the insurer had a duty of defend. The Court found that the policy was ambiguous because it lacked an express statement of priority regarding several exclusion provisions. The Law Court overruled Baybutt and found that those specific provisions were unambiguous. Pecrless Insurnlzcc Company ZJ. Robert C. Brcrznnrz, 564 A.2d 383, 386 (Me. 1989).

underinsured because her policy limit was greater than Plaintiff's UMI policy limit. As such, the UMI provision is not triggered because the tortfeasor was not an underinsured motorist.

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as there is no genuine issue nf material fact.

DATE: W-

Z ,: 7 05

;OF COURTS ~erlandCounty 0.Box 287 Maine 041 12-0287

SHELDON TEPLER ESQ

PO BOX 3065

LEWISTON ME 0 4 2 4 3

: OF COURTS erland County 3. Box 287 Waine 041 12-0287

CHRISTOPHER DINAN ESQ

PO BOX 7 0 4 6 u PORTLAND ME: 0 4 1 1 2