Curtis v. Allstate Insurance Company

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment for Allstate in an action arising from underinsured motorist coverage after a motor-vehicle accident. The court held that Allstate did not breach the insurance contract or violate Maine's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act or late-pay statute by delaying payment of disputed benefits while the underlying insurer's liability limits remained unresolved. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' fraud, unfair trade practices, emotional distress, and punitive damages claims.

Holdings

1. Allstate did not breach the insurance policy by withholding the disputed UM benefits before the tortfeasor's liability limits had been exhausted by settlement or judgment, or otherwise made subject to the policy's subrogation and cooperation arrangement.
2. A mere dispute between an insurer and insured over the meaning of policy language does not establish a knowing misrepresentation; the plaintiff must show that the insurer knew the policy said and meant one thing but represented something else.
3. Allstate did not violate the UCSPA by failing to pay the remaining benefits immediately after Saucier because the pending Dairyland settlement provided a reasonable basis to contest the amount then payable; Allstate paid within a reasonable time after learning that the settlement had failed.
4. The plaintiffs could not establish a violation based on an alleged threat to appeal an arbitration award because no arbitration award existed.
5. A legitimate controversy between the parties tolled Maine's thirty-day payment period, so Allstate did not violate the late-pay statute.
6. Because the plaintiffs failed to establish that Allstate misrepresented the policy, their fraud claim failed, and the derivative intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and punitive-damages claims also failed.
7. The UTPA claim failed because the plaintiffs presented no evidence that signing the releases caused a loss of money or property.
8. The Superior Court did not err in considering Allstate's summary-judgment motion before discovery was complete because the plaintiffs did not invoke the procedure for refusing or continuing summary judgment under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Allstate breached the UM insurance contract by refusing to pay the disputed portion of the policy limits before the tortfeasor's liability coverage had been exhausted by settlement or judgment.
2. Whether Allstate knowingly misrepresented policy provisions or otherwise violated the Maine Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act by disputing or delaying payment of the remaining UM benefits.
3. Whether Allstate violated Maine's late-pay statute by not paying the disputed benefits within thirty days.
4. Whether litigation concerning the disputed UM benefits constituted threatening to appeal from an arbitration award under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.
5. Whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to support their fraud, unfair trade practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive-damages claims.
6. Whether summary judgment was premature because discovery had not been completed.

Disposition

affirmed