Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Granite Bay Care, Inc.

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

November 17, 2014



Joyce A. Wheeler Justice

This matter is before the court on defendant Granite Bay Care Inc's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.


Plaintiff Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("Cambridge") filed this action as subrogee[1] of Nicholas and Paula Portlock to recover damages caused by a fire at the Forelocks' residential building located at 7 Green Street in Gorham, Maine. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 1.) Defendant Granite Bay Care, Inc. ("Granite") provides residential support services for individuals with disabilities, including two individuals who resided at 7 Green Street. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 2, as qualified; Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 6.) Cambridge alleges that Granite negligently failed to prevent one of the residents from starting a fire which caused damage to the property on August 17, 2012. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 3, as qualified.)

Granite leased the 7 Green Street property from the Portlocks under a "Residential Lease Agreement" dated October 13, 2010.[2] (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 4.) This lease was in effect on the date of the fire. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 7.) Section 10 of the lease provides:

Tenant acknowledges that Landlord's insurance does not cover personal property damage caused by fire, theft, rain, war, acts of God, acts of others, and/or any other causes, nor shall Landlord be held liable for such losses. Tenant is hereby advised to obtain his own insurance policy to cover any personal losses.

(Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 8.) The lease does not contain an express agreement that Granite would be liable in subrogation for fire damage to the property. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 9.) It does provide that Granite is responsible for "any damage resulting from careless or thoughtless action including but not limited to leaving the water running or the stove turned on." (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F. ¶ 34.)

Prior to entering into the lease agreement, the Portlocks and Granite did not discuss insurance coverage for the property. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶¶ 11-12.) In the lease, the Portlocks advised Granite to obtain insurance for Granite's own personal property, but Granite expected the Portlocks to provide insurance coverage for the building itself. (Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶¶ 16-17; Def.'s Supp. S.M.F. ¶ 18, as qualified.) The Portlocks did obtain insurance coverage for the building, but Granite is not an insured under the express terms of the policy.[3] (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F. ¶¶ 31-32.)

Granite leases multiple buildings in Maine and New Hampshire and insures them under a single Commercial General Liability policy, which covers property damage to the rented buildings. (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F. ¶ 30.) Prior to the fire, Granite paid for repairs to the property for damage caused by its clients. (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F. ¶ 35.) After the fire, Granite paid for some emergency services, including boarding up the building. (Pl.'s Add. S.M.F. ¶ 37, as qualified.)


1. Standard of Review

"Summary judgment is appropriate if the record reflects that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Dussault v. RRE Coach Lantern Holdings, LLC, 2014 ME 8, ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 52 (quoting F.R. Carroll, Inc. v. TD Bank, N.A, 2010 ME 115, ¶ 8, 8 A.3d 646). "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case, and there is a genuine issue when there is sufficient evidence for a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the fact." Mcllroy v. Gibson's Apple Orchard, 2012 ME 59, ¶ 7, 43 A.3d 948 (quoting N. E. Ins. Co. v. Young, 2011 ME 89, ¶ 17, 26 A.3d 794). "Even when one party's version of the facts appears more credible and persuasive to the court, any genuine factual dispute must be resolved through fact-finding, regardless of the nonmoving party's likelihood of success." Lewis v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 ME 34, ¶ 10, 87 A.3d 732. If facts are undisputed but nevertheless capable of supporting conflicting, plausible inferences, "the choice between those inferences is not for the court on summary judgment." Id.

2. Commercial vs. Residential Lease

For residential leases, Maine law is clear: "When the lease does not contain an express agreement addressing the issue of subrogation in the event of a negligently caused fire by a tenant ... a landlord's insurer may not proceed against the tenant as subrogee." N. River Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2002 ME 146, ¶ 16, 804 A.2d 399. This is referred to as the Sutton rule because it was first articulated in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975). Because the Sutton rule clearly applies to residential tenants ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.