Opinion
Civil Action CV-14-39
10-03-2015
RICKY LAFRANCE, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DONALD FURMAN ERIC I COLLINS FURMAN GREGORY LLC VISITING ATTORNEY FOR PLAINITIFF: JUSTIN LEVINE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: KENNETH PIERCE MATTHEW K LIBBY MONAGHAN LEAHY LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DONALD FURMAN ERIC I COLLINS FURMAN GREGORY LLC
VISITING ATTORNEY FOR PLAINITIFF: JUSTIN LEVINE
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: KENNETH PIERCE MATTHEW K LIBBY MONAGHAN LEAHY LLP
ORDER
John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court
Plaintiff Ricky LaFrance brought this action against Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company alleging breach of contract (Count I) and violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act ("UCSPA"), 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A (Count E) for a loss caused by a frozen pipe that burst in his home. State Farm denied coverage for failure to maintain adequate heat in the home. State Farm moved for summary judgment on the UCSPA count, which the court granted. Plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the order granting summary judgment.
"Motions for reconsideration of an order shall not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). The rule "is intended to deter disappointed litigants from seeking 'to reargue points that were or could have been presented to the court on the underlying motion."' Shaw v. Shaw, 2003 ME 153, ¶ 8, 839 A.2d 714. The court has discretion to deny such a motion without a hearing. M.R. Civ. P. 7(bX5).
In moving for reconsideration, LaFrance largely makes the same arguments that were in his opposition to summary judgment. Lap ranee expounds further on his theory that once he corrected his admitted initial "lie" that he did not add oil to the tank used to heat the home, State Farm had no legitimate basis to deny coverage, and thus the denial created liability under the UCSPA. The court carefully considered and ultimately rejected LaFrance's argument relying on several First Circuit cases that have held that "any legitimate doubt" about coverage creates a safe harbor under the UCSPA. To the extent LaFrance disagrees with this court's decision, his remedy is an appeal to the Law Court. The motion to reconsider is denied.
The entry shall be:
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENTED.
SO ORDERED.