[ad_1]
Listen to this articleWhere an insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify its insured for claims brought against her following a motor vehicle accident, the plain language of the policy entitles the insurer to judgment as a matter of law.
Thus, the denial of the insurer’s motion for summary judgment is reversed.
“United Financial Casualty Company (UFCC) filed suit for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify its insured, Angela Bell, for claims brought against her by Ashley, Jonathan, and Cameron Wilson (together, Wilsons) following a motor vehicle accident. UFCC later moved for summary judgment, arguing that an exclusion in the policy, which it referred to as the ‘owned but not covered’ exclusion, operated to bar coverage. A Superior Court judge (first judge) denied UFCC’s motion, concluding that the policy was ambiguous and that there was a genuine issue for trial as to whether Bell committed fraud. After UFCC then stipulated that it had no evidence of fraud, the Wilsons moved for summary judgment. A second judge, declining to revisit the first judge’s decision, allowed the Wilsons’ motion, and judgment entered dismissing UFCC’s complaint. UFCC appeals, arguing that the plain language of the policy entitles it to judgment as a matter of law. We agree and thus reverse. …
“… The parties agree that the substantive law of Maine governs this dispute. …
“The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a declaration consistent with this memorandum and order.”
United Financial Casualty Company v. Bell, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-018-25) (8 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-281) (Feb. 5, 2025).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
[ad_2]
Source link