Opinion ID: 2557861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Pending Action

Text: [¶ 9] Following entry of judgment in the underlying lawsuit against the homeowner, Jacobi filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of her daughter, against MMG seeking to collect, pursuant to Maine's reach and apply statute, 24-A M.R.S. § 2904, the judgment obtained against Bennett. [¶ 10] Pursuant to the Policy, Bennett has $300,000 in coverage per occurrence for personal liability due to bodily injury. A covered occurrence means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results, during the policy period, in ... `Bodily injury.' Bodily injury is defined as bodily harm, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of services, and death that results. The Policy, however, excludes from coverage bodily injury (1) [w]hich is expected or intended by one or more `insureds'; or (2) [a]rising out of sexual molestation, corporal punishment or physical or mental abuse. [¶ 11] Under an endorsement to the Policy (the Personal Injury Endorsement), the definition of bodily injury is expanded to include personal injury, which in turn means injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses: ... wrongful eviction. While the parties dispute whether the Personal Injury Endorsement to the Policy was properly invoked to extend coverage for wrongful eviction, we assume for purposes of this appeal that coverage was extended for wrongful eviction. However, the Personal Injury Endorsement does not apply to [i]njury caused by a violation of a penal law or ordinance committed by or with the knowledge or consent of an `insured.' [¶ 12] The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the court granted Jacobi's motion and denied MMG's motion. The court concluded that the underlying judgment in favor of Jacobi against Bennett awarded Jacobi damages for emotional distress resulting from Jacobi's being wrongfully evict[ed], as well as for emotional distress resulting from the sexual abuse, and that the damages could not be apportioned as between the two claims because the eviction process aggravated the pre-existing injuries resulting from the sexual assaults. The court concluded that, because there were multiple causes of damages alleged, one of which was not excluded under the Policy, Jacobi's reach and apply action was an appropriate remedy. [¶ 13] MMG filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied. MMG then brought this appeal.