Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Paul Galipeau was involved in a fatal accident while riding his motorcycle. Galipeau and his wife were insured under four vehicle policies issued by State farm, one on the motorcycle and the others covering three different vehicles. Each of the policies provided uninsured motorist (UM) coverage with a per-person limit of $100,000. The Estate demanded from State Farm the aggregate of each policy’s UM coverage limit, less the $50,000 recovered from the tortfeasor. State Farm paid the differential between the motorcycle policy UM limit and the amount already recovered by the Estate and otherwise refused the demand. The Estate subsequently sued State Farm for wrongful denial of coverage. The superior court entered judgment for State Farm, ruling that coverage under the three non-motorcycle policies was precluded by an “other-owned-vehicle” exclusion that each policy contained. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in entering summary judgment for State Farm on the ground that the other-owned-vehicle exclusion in the four policies precluded coverage under the three non-motorcycle policies. View "Estate of Galipeau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court considered when a municipal agency’s decision constitutes a final action subject to immediate judicial review. The owner of the Camden Harbour Inn applied to the Town of Camden for authorization to increase the number of guest rooms and parking spaces for the Inn and to reduce the number of seats at the Inn’s restaurant. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted a special exception permit subject to conditions and allowed the Inn to proceed to the Planning Board for site plan review. Susan Bryant, an abutter, appealed the ZBA’s decision to the superior court before site plan review could occur. The superior court affirmed the ZBA’s decision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded for dismissal of Bryant’s complaint, holding that, while the Town’s Zoning Ordinance expressly provided for Bryant’s appeal from the grant of the preliminary special permit, the ZBA’s decision was not a final action subject to appellate review in the courts because additional process was required by the Town’s Ordinance before a final decision on the Inn’s proposed changes is reached. View "Bryant v. Town of Camden" on Justia Law

Fiduciary Trust Co. filed a complaint to determine the proper method of distributing the principal of a trust of which Manchester H. Wheeler Jr. was a beneficiary. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Fiduciary, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata did not control the construction of the disputed term of the trust. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Fiduciary because (1) res judicata did not preclude the application of paragraph 2 of the trust, which governed the distribution of principal upon the trust’s termination; and (2) no genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to the unambiguous terms of paragraph 2. View "Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of aggravated trafficking of a schedule W drug, a Class A crime, for selling a single strip of Suboxone to a confidential informant. The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State failed to present evidence that Suboxone is a drug that falls within one of the listed categories of schedule W drugs. The Supreme Judicial Court held that because the State failed to establish that Suboxone was, in fact, a schedule W drug - evidence that is required for purposes of proving the charged Class A crime - the conviction must be vacated. Remanded for the entry of a judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Sudsbury" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. Defendant was sentenced to a term of fifty-five years in prison and ordered to pay restitution to the State Victims’ Compensation Fund. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the prosecutor engaged in impermissible misconduct during trial. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on its finding that the verdict was, to a high probability, not affected by the prosecutor’s misconduct; and (2) the trial court did not err in its responses to the jury’s request for a review of testimony. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Doug Lothrop and Julie Lothrop were divorced in 2008. In 2014, Doug filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 951-A(12), requesting termination or reduction of his spousal support obligation due to Julie’s cohabitation with another person. Section 951-A(12) was amended in 2013 to state that an order awarding spousal support is subject to modification where it can be shown that the payee and another person have been cohabiting for a certain period. The district court denied Doug’s motion to modify, concluding that the award was nonmodifiable because section 951-A(12) does not apply retroactively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that section 951-A(12) does not apply retroactively. View "Lothrop v. Lothrop" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of Class B unlawful sexual contact and two counts of Class C unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed, arguing that his conviction on the Class B charge should be vacated because the proof at trial varied from the dates alleged in the indictment and, therefore, his constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy was implicated. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial did not violate Defendant’s right to protection from double jeopardy and did not defeat the conviction for the Class B charge of unlawful sexual contact. View "State v. Lyon" on Justia Law

The district court appointed a referee to recommend a judgment in the divorce matter between John Simpson and Elena Wechsler. The referee filed a report making recommendations regarding custody issues and the division of marital property. The district court adopted the report as modified as a final divorce judgment. Simpson appealed from aspects of the divorce judgment affecting parental rights and responsibilities and the division of the marital estate. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the referee’s recommendation concerning the primary residence for the parties’ minor children and the division of the martial estate, which the district court adopted in its final divorce judgment, arose from due consideration of statutory factors and was not affected by any abuse of discretion or error. View "Wechsler v. Simpson" on Justia Law

In 2010, the City of Eastport learned that Husson University would no longer lease seventeen acres of publicly owned oceanfront property after the 2011-12 school year. In 2011, the City Council voted to accept an offer by First Perry Realty, LLC and CPM Constructors to purchase the property for $300,000. Phyllis Bradbury and David Gholson brought this action seeking declaratory and equitable relief that would prevent the sale of the City property, arguing that the sale of the property was not “advertised” within the meaning of the Eastport City Charter then in effect. The superior court denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the City Council took adequate measures to publicly advertise the sale of the property. View "Bradbury v. City of Eastport" on Justia Law

Ed Friedman, joined by others, filed a complaint raising issues regarding the health effects Central Maine Power Company’s (CMP) advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) system. After conducting an investigation, the Maine Public Utilities Commission concluded that AMI does not pose a credible threat of harm to the health and safety of CMP’s customers. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission applied the correct credible threat standard; (2) the Commission’s determination was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the two Commissioners serving on the panel unequivocally concurred in the decision despite their differing rationales. View "Friedman v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n" on Justia Law