Opinion ID: 1930145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment in Favor of Continental Insurance Co.

Text: Continental and Daniels filed cross-motions for a summary judgment. Continental took the position that QuickCare's policy afforded Daniels no coverage because at the time of the accident he was not operating his vehicle in the course of his employment. Continental submitted an affidavit of QuickCare's president stating that QuickCare hired Daniels to work Saturdays and Sundays only and that he in fact had not acted as a courier on the Friday night of the accident. Daniels, however, asserted by affidavit that as a condition of his employment, QuickCare required that he own a motor vehicle and that he use the motor vehicle to perform his duties as a courier; that, although the usual time for performing his courier route was in the early mornings on Saturday and Sunday, he had occasionally performed his first route on Friday evenings with the knowledge and authorization of his supervisors at QuickCare; and that at the time of the accident he was en route to Mercy Hospital, retrieving material as directed by and for the sole benefit of QuickCare.
The District Court erred in granting a summary judgment in favor of Continental on the issue of its duty to defend Daniels against the underlying tort claim. We have recently reiterated that the obligation of a liability insurance company to defend an action brought against an insured by a third party is determined by comparing the provisions of the insurance contract with the allegations in the underlying complaint. If there is any legal or factual basis that could be developed at trial, which would obligate the insurer to pay under the policy, the insured is entitled to a defense. The correct test is whether a potential for liability within the coverage appears from whatever allegations are made. Lavoie v. Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 560 A.2d 570, 571 (Me.1989) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). In short, an insurer's duty to defend should be decided summarily and in favor of the insured if there exists any legal or factual basis, which could be developed at trial, that would obligate the insurer to pay under the policy. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rosso, 521 A.2d 301, 303 (Me. 1987). In applying the comparison test to the present facts, we examine the tort plaintiff's complaint to determine whether there exists any possibility that Continental would be held to indemnify Daniels. The complaint alleges that on December 23, 1988, Daniels' negligent operation of his motor vehicle caused the tort plaintiff to suffer property damages. Under that pleading, it might well be developed at trial that the collision occurred at a time when Daniels was operating his vehicle in connection with [QuickCare's] business. In that circumstance Daniels would be covered under the policy's nonowned auto provision. Accordingly, we vacate the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Continental on the issue of its duty to defend Daniels and on that issue direct entry instead of a summary judgment in favor of third-party plaintiff Daniels.
It was also error for the District Court to grant a summary judgment in favor of Continental on the issue of indemnification. Clearly there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether at the time of the collision between the tort plaintiff and Daniels, Daniels was already on his courier route. Hence it was improper for the District Court to declare that Daniels was not using his automobile in connection with [QuickCare's] business, thereby eliminating the possibility of coverage under the Continental policy. See M.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Nonetheless, because [t]he insured's duty to indemnify ... may depend on the actual facts or legal theory behind the underlying action against the insured by the injured party, United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Rosso, 521 A.2d at 303, we defer any further consideration of Continental's obligation to indemnify Daniels until full development of the facts in the principal tort action so as to enable the trial court to decide whether the insurance contract language requiring indemnification is met in the present circumstances.