Source: https://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/00me154a.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:21:38+00:00

Document:
judgment of the Superior Court.
inter alia, "[o]wner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance."
efforts to fix the dam during this time.
departments of the situation and posted a watchman for the weekend.
alleged negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty.
insurance procurement provision requiring Levesque to carry fire insurance.
grant of the motion.  After another hearing, the court denied the motion.
Acadia now appeals to this Court.
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.  See Corey v.
unambiguous, its interpretation are questions of law.  See Willis Realty Assoc.
for the factfinder.  See id.
any particular provision in the contract," SC Testing Tech., Inc. v.
Department of Envtl. Protection, 688 A.2d 421, 424 (Me. 1996).
as covering different types of risk.
(N.Y. App. Div. 1985), aff'd without decision, 66 N.Y.S.2d 779 (1985).
contract for damages resulting from the fire.
prior to loss."  See Emery Waterhouse Co. v. Lea, 467 A.2d 986, 994 (Me.
unless the contract provides otherwise.  See, e.g., Tokio Marine and Fire Ins.
Housing Inv. Corp. v. Carris, 389 So. 2d 689, 689-90 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
(Ga. 1980); Berger v. Teton Shadows Inc., 820 P.2d 176, 178 (Wyo. 1991).
Weems v. Nanticoke Homes, Inc., 378 A.2d 190, 193-94 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.
1977); Berger, 820 P.2d at 178.
liability on the part of the opposing party.
following loss or damage of property.  See Tokio Marine, 786 F.2d at 104.
loss from fire allegedly caused by Buck.
caused by that party's own negligence do not contravene public policy").
we affirm the summary judgment.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.