Thomas R. McKeon, Justice

ORDER

Thomas R. McKeon, Justice

Before the court are two motions regarding the two Defendants who argue Plaintiffs Liquor Liability Act claims should be dismissed for failure to meet the Act's notice requirement. The first is the Plaintiff s motion to reconsider the court order dismissing Defendant Rivalries. The second is Defendant Commercial Street Pub's Motion for Summary Judgment on largely the same grounds.

The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Plaintiffs' injuries occurred as a result of an October 30, 2021 car accident with Defendant DiMillo. In late January, counsel obtained a copy of DiMillo's driving record which indicated her license was suspended as a result of operating with a blood alcohol content of over 0.08 on the date of the accident. Counsel made no effort to investigate a potential liquor liability claim. The 180-day notice period expired on April 28, 2022.

On May 11, DiMillo pled guilty on her OUI charge. The court agrees that prior to that date, the attorney would not have been able to interview DiMillo. The court also assume that he would not have been able to obtain the police investigation. On June 6, the attorney obtained a copy of the police crash report. There is no reason offered why that took so long. Furthermore, the crash report provided no information that did not appear on the driving record obtained in January. In June, counsel began to act, asking for the police investigation materials and inquiring with DiMillo's criminal defense counsel. In September, DiMillo's criminal defense counsel disclosed DiMillo consumed alcohol at Rivalries and at the Commercial Street Pub. DiMillo's civil attorney received the criminal discovery materials in October. He served a notice of claim on Rivalries in October and on Commercial Street Pub in January.

The Act has a 180-day notice requirement:

Every plaintiff seeking damages under this Act must give written notice to all defendants within 180 days of the date of the server's conduct creating liability under this Act. ... Failure to give written notice within the time specified is grounds for dismissal of a claim, unless the plaintiff provides written notice within the limits of [the statute of limitations] and shows good cause why notice could not have reasonably been filed within the 180-day limit. For purposes of this section, "good cause" includes but is not limited to the inability of the plaintiff to obtain investigative records from a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency.

What happened to the plaintiff Farrin in Beaulieu is instructive.

Farrin's lack of knowledge that Crabtree was possibly intoxicated or that he was served alcohol by the Cascade Inn and the lack of a full investigation conducted by Farrin do not constitute good cause. This is particularly true considering that the accident occurred as Crabtree's vehicle pulled out of a restaurant parking lot and Crabtree then disappeared, which should have put Farrin on notice to at least investigate whether alcohol may have been involved. Because Fan-in was not

prevented from learning that the Cascade Inn served Crabtree alcohol or that Crabtree appeared intoxicated immediately after the collision, she may not avoid dismissal of her action for failure to file a timely notice of claim.

In this case, the court has no information one way or the other regarding whether the Plaintiffs had reason to know DiMillo was intoxicated prior to their attorney's receipt of her driving record in January. What is clear is that Plaintiffs did have clear evidence alcohol was involved after receipt of the report. That is much clearer evidence than Farrin had when the Law Court found she had an obligation to investigate merely because Crabtree was leaving a restaurant at the time of the accident.

Here the Plaintiff makes no claim they investigated until June. It is true they could not interview DiMillo within the 180-day notice period. The court assumes it is true that an effort to obtain law enforcement materials may not have been successful had they commenced the effort in January. The court has no idea, however, what an investigation may have revealed. In Beaulieu, the court noted that a plaintiff could not wait for witnesses to come to them. Good cause requires that the plaintiff at least attempt an investigation. The Plaintiffs may have been able to find information regarding what DiMillo did that day. If they tried but failed, that would have been evidence of good cause. The Plaintiffs did not try.

Plaintiffs in the Motion for Reconsideration argue that if the court does not find good cause, the court is not required to dismiss the case. They do not, however, identify anything else that the court should consider when determining when to dismiss the case. Lack of prejudice to the Defendants does not appear to be a factor that the court should consider. In Beaulieu, Farrin's driver did file a timely notice, making the defendant in that case well aware of the accident and a claim for liquor liability. That was not enough to save Farrin from dismissal. Id. ¶ 25. Strictly construing the notice provision as required, dismissal is the remedy for failure to comply with the statute or show good cause for the reason for the failure.

The entry is:

Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Rivalries LLC's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Defendant's Commercial Street Pub's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

This Order is incorporated on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).