Opinion ID: 2071397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pine Ridge's Alternative Arguments

Text: [¶ 26] Finally, although Pine Ridge asserts that the court erred in several other respects, we find no error. The court did not err in concluding that the losses suffered resulted from perils excluded from coverage; [13] in concluding that Massachusetts Bay was not estopped from denying flood coverage, see Roberts v. Maine Bonding & Cas. Co., 404 A.2d 238, 241 (Me.1979); or in finding that Massachusetts Bay had not made any knowing misrepresentations regarding pertinent facts of policy provisions relating to coverage at issue, see 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2436-A(1)(A). [14] [¶ 27] Nor did the court err in granting St. Angelo's and Anderson-Watkins's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 50(d). When reviewing a judgment entered pursuant to Rule 50(d), we are not required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Rather, we must accept the facts found by the court unless those findings are clearly erroneous. McCarthy v. U.S.I. Corp., 678 A.2d 48, 50-51 (Me.1996) (citing Smith v. Welch, 645 A.2d 1130, 1132 (Me.1994)). The trial court's factual and legal conclusions were fully supported by competent evidence in the record. See Paffhausen v. Balano, 1999 ME 169, ¶ 9, 740 A.2d 981, 983. The other contentions of Pine Ridge do not merit discussion.