Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered in the business and consumer court in favor of UIG, Inc. on Yankee Pride Transportation and Logistics, Inc.'s claims of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to causation.On appeal, Yankee Pride argued that it had an implied contract with UIG based on the parties' relationship and that UIG breached that contract by failing to make timely efforts to renew Yankee Pride's policy. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that Yankee Pride's failure to offer competent evidence of causation precluded a prima facie showing on any of its claims, whether they sounded in contract, tort, or breach of fiduciary duty. View "Yankee Pride Transportation & Logistics, Inc. v. UIG, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the summary judgment of the superior court concluding that the complaint brought by the Estate of Marion Sprague against Bankers Life and Casualty Company for breach of a home health insurance contract was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, holding that the facts established that the limitations period had not expired before the Estate filed suit.The Estate brought this complaint alleging breach of contract, detrimental reliance, impossibility of performance, quantum merit, and violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 24-A, 2155. Bankers Life filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Estate's action was time-barred under Maine's six-year statute of limitations for civil actions. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the summary judgment, holding that the Estate timely filed its complaint within the six-year limitations period. View "Estate of Sprague v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the appellate division of the Workers' Compensation Board affirming the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) granting Plaintiff's petition for award of compensation, holding that an employee is not required to give notice of his occupational disease claim to his former employer's insurer when the employer no longer exists.Nearly twenty years after retiring from his employment Plaintiff underwent surgery for lung cancer and was later diagnosed with asbestosis. Plaintiff filed five petitions for award of compensation, each alleging a different date of injury and naming and different employer and insurer pairing. The ALJ (1) found that Plaintiff's last injurious exposure to asbestos occurred when he was working for Auburn Sheet Metal, which was insured by Maine Employers' Mutual Insurance Company (MEMIC) but no longer existed, and (2) granted Plaintiff's petition for an award of compensation. The appellate division concluded that Plaintiff was not required to provide notice to MEMIC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate division did not err in concluding that the workers' compensation statute does not impose on an injured employee whose employer no longer exists the duty to give notice to the insurer. View "Desgrosseilliers v. Auburn Sheet Metal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgments entered by the district court establishing Dawn and James Ostrander as de facto parents of two biological children of Mark Martin and Marylou MacMahan, allocating parental rights and responsibilities and child support among the parties, and amending a divorce judgment between Martin and MacMahan, holding that the judgment amending the divorce judgment was in error.In an agreed-upon divorce judgment, the family court awarded shared parental rights of the twins of MacMahan and Martin to both parties. Later, the Ostranders, with whom the children were living, filed a complaint seeking a determination of de facto parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support. The court concluded that the Ostranders were the de facto parents of the children, decided that parental rights would be shared among the Ostranders, Martin, and MacMahan, and amended some of the divorce judgment's provisions. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment amending the divorce judgment and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in establishing de facto parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support; and (2) the judgment amending the divorce judgment was inconsistent with the judgment establishing parental rights and responsibilities. View "Martin v. MacMahan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their older child and the order finding that Mother's younger child was in jeopardy in her care, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in concluding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. 1901-1963, did not apply to either child, and Father challenged the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the ICWA did not apply to either of Mother's two children; and (2) the court did not err or abuse its discretion by finding at least one ground of parental unfitness and in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the older child. View "In re Children of Michelle C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the divorce judgment issued in the district court as to child support and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court erred in calculating child support.Lawrence Bloom and Annalee Bloom had two children when they divorced. The district court entered a divorce judgment on Annalee's complaint setting forth child support and spousal support and distributing the marital property. Lawrence appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) because the child support worksheets and orders contained multiple errors, the court's child support determination in the amended judgment must be corrected; and (2) the judgment is otherwise affirmed. View "Bloom v. Bloom" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court modifying the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in the divorce judgment in this case, holding that the court abused its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of certain information and failed adequately to explain certain modifications.On appeal, Appellant argued that the court erred in failing to take judicial notice of vaccine information available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website and failed to provide an explanation when it changed the contract schedule and allocated final decision-making authority on educational and medical matters to Appellee. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the court abused its discretion in refusing to take judicial notice; and (2) the court inadequately explained its modifications to the contact schedule and the allocation of decision-making authority. View "Seymour v. Seymour" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order entered in the superior court in favor of Defendants granting Defendants' special motion to dismiss Plaintiff's defamation claim pursuant to Maine's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 556, holding that the special motion to dismiss must be denied.Plaintiff filed this defamation claim relating to a letter that Defendants sent to school officials. Defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Defendants met their burden of establishing that they had engaged in petitioning activities when they sent the letter complaining of Plaintiff’s conduct; but (2) Plaintiff met his burden of presenting prima facie evidence that the Defendants’ petitioning activity was devoid of any reasonable factual support. View "Thurlow v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in this insurance dispute, holding that the superior court properly entered summary judgment in favor of 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company and 21st Century Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. (collectively, 21st Century).Collette Boure and Alexander Meyers took the car of Nancy Snow, Meyers's great aunt, and fled Maine to begin a drive across the country. While the teenage couple was in Oklahoma, they crashed in a chase with police, resulting in Boure's death. Boure's Estate sought uninsured motorist coverage from Concord General Mutual Insurance Company (Concord) on a personal auto policy issued to him and from 21st Century on a personal auto policy issued to Meyers's great aunt. After both insurers denied coverage Concord brought a declaratory judgment action against the Estate. The Estate counterclaimed against Concord and brought a separate action against 21 Century. The court granted summary judgments in favor of Concord and 21st Century. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Estate's appeal of the summary judgment in favor of Concord was untimely; and (2) the court properly entered summary judgment in favor of 21st Century. View "Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Estate of Collette J. Boure" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in violation of condition of release entered in the trial court following a jury trial, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court committed no error that affected Defendant's substantial rights in informing the jury of a joint stipulation of facts when the stipulation was signed by Defendant's counsel but not him personally; (2) the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury; and (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to supporting the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged. View "State v. Bilynsky" on Justia Law