ESTATE OF PAUL R. GALIPEAU
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
December 10, 2015.
briefs: Steven D. Silin, Esq., and Robert H. Furbish, Esq.,
Berman & Simmons, P.A., Lewiston, for appellant Estate of
Paul R. Galipeau.
William Druary, Jr., Esq., and Gregory M. Patient, Esq.,
Marden Dubord, Bernier & Stevens, PA LLC, Waterville, for
appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
argument: Robert H. Furbish, Esq., for appellant Estate of
Paul R. Galipeau.
M. Patient, Esq., for appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM,
[¶1] The Estate of Paul R. Galipeau (Estate)
appeals from a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court
(Kennebec County, Murphy, J. ) in favor of State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) on the
Estate's complaint for wrongful denial of coverage
concerning three of four vehicle insurance policies owned by
Paul Galipeau at the time of his death. The Estate contends
that State Farm was obligated to pay the uninsured motorist
(UM) coverage limit of each of the four policies, not just
the UM coverage limit of the policy naming the motorcycle
Galipeau was riding when he was involved in a fatal accident.
State Farm contends that the court correctly ruled that
coverage under the three non-motorcycle policies was
precluded by an " other-owned-vehicle" exclusion
that each policy contained. It further asserts that coverage
was precluded by an " anti-stacking" provision in
the policies, the applicability of which the Estate disputes.
We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] The summary judgment record contains
the following evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
the Estate as the non-moving party. See Brady v.
Cumberland Cty., 2015 ME 143, ¶ 2, 126 A.3d 1145. On
August 15, 2012, Paul Galipeau was killed in a motor vehicle
accident while riding his motorcycle. With State Farm's
consent, the Estate settled a claim against the tortfeasor
for $50,000, the limit of the tortfeasor's liability
[¶3] Galipeau and his wife Judith, the
personal representative of his estate, were insured under
four vehicle policies issued by State Farm: one on the
motorcycle that Paul was riding when the accident occurred,
and the others covering three different vehicles. Each of the
policies provided UM coverage with a per-person limit of
$100,000. The Estate demanded $350,000 from State Farm,
representing the aggregate of each policy's UM coverage
limit, less the $50,000 recovered from the tortfeasor. State
Farm paid the $50,000 differential between the motorcycle
policy UM limit and the $50,000 already recovered by the
Estate, and otherwise refused the demand.
[¶4] The parties dispute whether State Farm
Policy Form 9819B or the earlier Policy Form 9819A was in
effect at the time of the accident. Each contains an "