Opinion ID: 1996492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Arbitration Contract

Text: [¶ 26] The interpretation of a contract and whether or not its terms are ambiguous are questions of law that we review de novo. Farrington's Owners' Ass'n v. Conway Lake Resorts, Inc., 2005 ME 93, ¶ 10, 878 A.2d 504, 507. [C]ontractual terms should be read in context to give effect to the intention of the makers of the instrument. Id. ¶ 11 n. 2, 878 A.2d at 508 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 27] According to the language of the arbitration agreement, the agreement was between Beal and Prosky. The agreement specified that [t]he parties hereto agree to submit for final determination by arbitrator all of Beal's claims for personal injury and related damages. (Emphasis added.) The high-low provision stated that [t]he parties agree that regardless of the amount the arbitrator shall award, Plaintiff [Beal] shall receive from Defendant [Prosky] or his insurer no less than $60,000 and no more than $100,000, except that the Defendant/Allstate shall get credit for prior payments.... (Emphasis added.) Finally, the agreement provided for Beal's release and stipulation of dismissal in favor of Prosky. There was no provision for the release of Beal's UIM insurer. [¶ 28] A plain reading of these provisions leads to the conclusion that Allstate's responsibilities as Beal's UIM insurer were not addressed in the arbitration agreement. The language agreed to by the parties provided that Prosky and Beal intended for the arbitrator to determine all of Beal's personal injury and related damages, but that regardless of that determination, Prosky and his insurer, would only pay Beal within the high-low range. The terms his insurer and Allstate, used in the same sentence of the high-low provision, are not ambiguous and only refer to Allstate as Prosky's liability insurer. Furthermore, because Allstate is not mentioned elsewhere in the arbitration agreement, there is no other context that would suggest a different meaning. Contrary to Allstate's position, the arbitration agreement and its high-low provision did not reduce, eliminate, or directly address Allstate's responsibility to Beal, as her UIM insurer. [4] [¶ 29] Thus, after Beal settled her damages up to the policy limits of Prosky's liability insurance, the question remains whether, pursuant to section 2902 and the terms of her UIM policy, she is still legally entitled to recover damages from [the] owner[] or operator[ ] of [an] underinsured... motor vehicle[ ]. See 24-A M.R.S. § 2902(1).