Opinion ID: 1930145
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continental's Obligation to Indemnify Daniels

Text: 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.