Opinion ID: 1952793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Other Insurance

Text: [¶ 18] Sun contends that it should have been allowed to demonstrate that the Credit Unions were insured and had already been compensated by insurance for the losses claimed in this action. It argues that the proffered evidence established mitigating factors that the jury should have been allowed to consider in evaluating its assessment of punitive damages, and that it was relevant to causation. Sun also asserts that the evidence was admissible on the issue of whether the Credit Unions' reliance on the misrepresentations in the certificates of insurance was reasonable. [¶ 19] The Credit Unions contend that the existence of other insurance was properly excluded by the court pursuant to Werner, 393 A.2d at 1335. The Credit Unions also assert that Sun failed to adequately preserve the issue as to reliance and, moreover, that Sun failed to make use of the limited evidence pertaining to the statements made by the Credit Unions on the proofs of loss that the court did allow Sun to present. [¶ 20] The collateral source doctrine provides that, if a plaintiff is compensated in whole or in part for his damages by some source independent of the tortfeasor, he is still permitted to have a full recovery against [the tortfeasor]. Werner, 393 A.2d at 1335. The premise underlying this rule is that either the injured party or the tortfeasor will receive a windfall if part of a loss is paid by an independent source, and, as between the injured party and the tortfeasor, the injured party should reap the benefit of the windfall. Potvin v. Seven Elms, Inc., 628 A.2d 115, 116 (Me.1993). [¶ 21] We agree with the Credit Unions that evidence of other insurance covering the same losses was not admissible on issues of causation and punitive damages. The trial court erred, however, in overly restricting Sun's use of the statements signed by the Credit Unions on proof of loss forms submitted to their own insurers shortly after the theft. The Credit Unions allege that Sun fraudulently issued certificates of insurance, which represented that Maine Armored Car had insurance policy coverage for thefts of the checks placed in the lock box, and as a necessary element of their fraud claims, that the Credit Unions relied on those certificates to their detriment. On the reliance issue, Sun should have been allowed to fully present the statements on the proofs of loss that were signed under oath by the Credit Unions and submitted to their own insurers. These statements affirmatively asserted, or clearly reflected, that no insurance, other than their own policies, existed to cover the loss from the May 22, 1992 theft of the checks from the lock box. Pursuant to the collateral source doctrine, the Credit Unions are not precluded from recovering against Sun for the value of the lost checks in this action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Nevertheless, such statements are relevant for the limited purpose of determining whether the asserted reliance by the Credit Unions on the certificates issued by Sun was reasonable. [¶ 22] The Credit Unions contend that Sun failed to preserve the issue of the admissibility of the proof of loss statements on the issue of relevance. Even if Sun preserved their reliance argument, the Credit Unions further assert that Sun failed to take advantage of the limited use of the statements that the trial court allowed. An issue is raised and preserved if there was a sufficient basis in the record to alert the court and any opposing party to the existence of that issue. Chasse v. Mazerolle, 580 A.2d 155, 156 (Me.1990). [¶ 23] In opposing the Credit Unions' pretrial motion in limine to exclude the evidence of the proofs of loss and the statements contained in them, Sun clearly and emphatically argued the relevance of that evidence to the issue of reliance. At trial, when the court reconsidered the in limine motion and the admissibility of the statements on the proofs of loss, Sun was less clear on the reasons for their admissibility, but the court expressly stated its awareness that the evidence went to the issue of reliance. Although the parties are responsible to direct the attention of the courts to the record, and to clearly state supporting reasons for objections, see e.g., M.R. Evid. 103(a), Sun's arguments opposing the Credit Unions' motion in limine sufficiently preserved the admissibility of the statements of the proofs of loss as relevant to whether the Credit Unions relied on the certificates of insurance. [¶ 24] Moreover, the strict limitations placed on that evidence by the trial court prevented Sun from making any effective use of those statements at trial to impeach the contentions of the Credit Unions that they reasonably relied on the certificates of insurance. For the statements on the proofs of loss to make sense, they must have a context, i.e., that they are statements appearing on proofs of loss submitted by the Credit Unions to their own insurers to recover for the same losses that the Credit Unions contend they relied on the certificates to cover. The fact that the Credit Unions had their own insurance covering the theft of the checks does not preclude their suit against Sun for fraud, see Werner, 393 A.2d at 1335, and does not mean that the Credit Unions could not or did not reasonably rely on the certificates. Sun is entitled to test the reasonableness of that reliance, however, and the jury must be aware that the statements were made in conjunction with proofs of loss submitted to their own insurers.