!
MAINE&SUPREME&JUDICIAL&COURT& Reporter&of&Decisions&
Decision:& 2019&ME&153&
Docket:& Yor-19-63&
Argued:& September&26,&201 9&
Decided:& October&24,&2019&
&
Panel: & SAUFLEY,&C.J.,&and&ALEXANDER,&MEAD,&GORMAN,&JABAR,&HJELM,&and&HUMPHREY,&JJ.&
&
!
NATIONAL&WRECKER,&INC.&
&
v.&
&
PROGRESSIVE&CASUALTY&IN S URANCE&COMPANY&
&
&
JABAR,&J. &
[¶1]&&National&Wrecker,&Inc.,&(“NWI”)&appeals&from&an&order&entered&in&
the& Superior& Court& (York& County,& !"#$%&,' ())& granting& Progress ive& Casualty&
Insurance& Company’s& (“Progressive”)& motion& for& summary& judgment,& and&
denying&NWI’s.&&Central&to&this&appeal&is&the&question&of&whether&a&judgment&
obtained& by& NWI& against& Fred& Muluya& d/b/a& Anakiya& Trucking& (“Muluya”),&
Progressive’s&insured,&is&covered&by&Muluya’s&automobile&insurance&contract.&&
We&agree&with&the&Superior&Court&that&it&is¬&covered&by&the&policy,&and&we&
therefore&affirm&the&judgment&in&favor&of&Progressive.&
I.&&BACKGROUND&
[¶2]& & The& following& f acts& are& set& forth& in& the& joint& stipulation& of& fact, &
submitted&to&the&Superior&Court&in&support&of&the&parties’&respective&motions&
2&
for& summ ary& judgment.& & We& review& the& Superior& Court’s& entry& of& summary &
judgment&de&novo&as&a&matter&of&law,&in&light&of&the&stipulated&facts.&&*+&&+,$'-)'
./+/$'0 +12'34/)'54/6)'7 89)':6),&2017&ME&141,&¶&8,&166&A.3d&989.&
A.& The&Accident&
& [¶3]& & Muluya
1
& owned& a&large&box& truck&insured& by& a& Co mmercial&Auto &
Insurance& Policy& through& Progressive,& the& defendant& in& this& matter.& & In& the&
early& morning& of& December& 20,& 2016,& the& Eliot& Police& Department& contacted&
NWI&to&respond&to&an&accident&involving&Muluya’s&truck,&which& had&gone&off&
the& road& and&crashed&into&a&ditch&on& property&owned& by& a&thir d& party.&&The&
truck& had& suffered& substantial& damage& and& diesel& fuel& was& leaking& from& the&
punctured& fuel& tank.&&In& an& effort& to& contain& the& leaked& fuel& and& prevent&
further& leakage,& the& NWI& employees& pumped& the& remaining& diesel& from& the&
truck&and&laid&absorbent&pads&over&the&spilled&fuel.&&NWI&also&removed&debris&
from&the&scene.&&Two&NWI&wreckers&removed&the&truck&from&the&third&party’s&
property& to&the&roadway& and&tow ed&it&to&an&NWI&facility& in&Eliot.
2
&&NWI&sent &
Muluya&an&invoice&detailing&these&services&and&requesting&payment&of&$7,440&
for&the&services.&&&
1
&&Muluya&is¬&a&party&in&the&present&case.&
2
&&A&separate&company&was&responsible&for&further&clea nup&and&remediation&of&the&leaked&diesel&
fuel.&&&
3&
[¶4]& & In& February& 20 17,& NWI& filed& a& complaint& against& Muluya& i n&
Superior&Court,&seeking&“ payment&o f&its&invoice&f o r&recovery&and&remediation&
services;&assisting&of&[Muluya]&in&the&clean-up&of&[the]& accident;& towing& fees;&
and&storage&fees.”&&In&Jun e&2017,&the&Su perior&Court&(York&County,&;64<&+9,&())&
entered& judgment& in&favor&of& NWI& (the&“underlying& judgment”)&and&awarded&
NWI&$26,540&in&total&damages&for&the& services& listed& o n&the&invoice&and&th e&
subsequent&st orage&fees&for&Muluya’s&truck.&
3
&&
B.& The&Policy&
& [¶5]& & Muluya& carried& a& Commercial& Auto& Insurance& Policy& with&
Progressive& at& all& times& relevant& to& this& case.& & The& truck& was& liste d& on& the&
“Auto& Coverage& Sch edule”& of& the& poli cy.& & The& policy& provides& $5,000& in&
compulsory& property& damage& liability& coverage,& a nd& $100,000& in& o ptional&
property&damage&cover age.&&&
[¶6]&&Liability&coverage&is&provided&in&Part&I&o f&the&policy,&which&contains &
the&following&language:
4
&&
3
&&The&record&does¬&contain&a©&of&the&complaint&filed&in&the&underlying&case,&#+/=&'*1$,>$1,'
78,)'-)'01$?'34&4@+'?ABA+'58+>%@+'C14,>%8<,&ALFSC-CV-2017-0045&(Me.&Super.&Ct.,&York&Cty.,&June&29,&
2017).&&As& discussed& in& greater& detail& below,& the& parties& disagree& about& what& the& underlying&
judgment&represents.&&
4
&&This&is&the&standard&Liability&to&Others&provision&of&the&policy&as&amended&by&a&Massachusetts&
Amendatory&Endorsement.&&
4&
[I]f& you& pay& the& premium& for& liability& coverage,& we& will& pay&
damages& .& .& .& for& bodily& injury,& property& damage,& and& covered&
pollution& cost& or& expense,& D61' EF%,F' +8' %8941$?' B$,62$9' &$<+&&@'
1$9G689%B& $' B$,+49$' 6D' +8' +,,%?$8/& arising& out& of& the& ownership,&
maintenance&or&use&of&an&insured&auto.&&
&
The& Policy& defines& “property& damag e”& as& “damage& to& tangible& property&
including&any&applicable&sales& tax& and&the& costs&resulting& from&loss&of&use&of&
the&damage d&property.”&&&
C.& The&Order&Appealed&From&
[¶7]& & Pursuant& to & Maine’s& reach-and-apply&statute,&24-A& M.R.S.& §& 2904&
(2018),& N WI& filed& a& claim& against& Progressive& on& August& 7,& 2017,& seeking&
recovery& of& the& $26,540& judgment& it& obtained& against& Muluya.& & NWI& also&
sought& a& declaratory& judgment& entitling& it& to& collect& on& its & judgment& against&
Muluya&from&Progressive,&pursuant&to&14&M.R.S.&§§&5951-5963&(2018).&&&
[¶8]& & The& parties& filed& cross-motions& for& summary& judgment& in&
May&2018,&along&with&a&joint&stipulation&of&fact.&&Both&parties&contended&that&
the& “sole& legal& issue& to& be& decided& in& the& case& [was]& whether& Progressive’s&
insurance& policy& covers& National& Wrecker’s& judgment.”& & After& holding& a&
hearing&on&the&motions,&th e&Superior&Court&(!"#$%&,'())&issued&an&order&granting&
Progressive’s&motion&for& summary&judgment&and&denying&NWI’s.&&&
& [¶9]&&NWI&timely&appeals.&&M.R.&App.&P.&2B(c)(1).!
5&
II.&&DISCUSSION&
[¶10]&&“We&review&de&novo&both&a&court’s&grant&of&summary&judgment &
and& its& interpretation& of& an& insurance& policy.”& & H$&&$@' -)' #61/F' I+9/' 789)' :6),&
2017&ME&166,&¶&4,&168&A.3d&779.&&The&material&facts&are¬&in&d ispute&and&our&
review&is&limited&to&whether&Pro gressive&was&entitled&to&judgment&as&a&matter&
of&law.&&7?.&&
[¶11]&&“Standard&liability& insurance&policies&provide&t hat& t he&insurer&has&
a& duty& to& indemnify& the& insured& for& those& sums& that& the& insured& becomes&
legally&obligated&to&p ay&as& damages&for&a &covered&claim.”&&J+1&61'- ) '52%,+'34/)'
789)' :6),& 2016& ME& 161,& ¶& 23,& 150& A.3d& 793& (alterations& omitted)& (quotation&
marks&omitted).&&“The&reach&and&apply&statute&enables&a&judgment&creditor&to&
have&insurance&money&applied&to&the&satisfaction&of&the&judgment&by&bringing&
an& action& against& the& judgment& debtor’s& insurer& if& the& judgment& debtor& was&
insured&for&the&liability&forming&the&basis&of&the&judgment.”&&59F$'-)'I8/$1G1%9$'
K$8/L5L:+1,&2003&ME&147,&¶&14,&838&A.2d&1157&(citation&omitted);&24-A&M.R.S.&
§&2904&(2018).&&
[¶12]&&When&a&party&appeals&a&judgment&denying&insurance&coverage&in&
a&reach-and-apply&action,&our&first&step&is&to&“identify&the&basis&of&liability&and&
damages&from&the&underlying&complaint&and&judgment&and&then&to&review&the&
6&
insurance& policy& to& determine& if& any& of& the& damages& awarded& in & the&
underlying&judgment&are&based&on&claims&that&would&be&recoverable&pursuant&
to&the&policy.”&&H$&&$@,&2017& ME&166,& ¶& 5,& 168&A.3d&779' (alterations& omitted)&
(quotation&marks&omitted);&9$$&24-A&M.R.S.&§&2904&(2018).&&
[¶13]& & The& parties& do& not& disput e& that& the& basis& for& the& underlying&
judgment&is&Muluya’s&liability&for&payment&for&the&services&rendered&by&NWI.&&
Rather,& the& parties& dispute& whether& t here& was& property& damage& to& the&
property&owned&by&the&third&party& that&is&inseparably& linked& to& those&services&
and&Muluya’s&liability.&
& [¶14]& & Muluya’s& policy& with& Progressive& does& cover& property& damage&
caused&by&Muluya’s&truck&to&the&third-party&owner’s&property&resulting&from&
the&accident.&&However,&Muluya&has¬&been&sued&by&the&property&owner,&nor&
has& Muluya’s& responsibility& for& any& property& damage& ever& been& otherwise&
established.& & The& question& before& us& is& whether& the& underlying& judgment&
obtained&by&NWI&is&for&damage&to&the&third-party&owner’s&property.&
[¶15]&&While&the&parties&stipulated&that&the&court&entered&judgment&for&
NWI& and& awarded& $26, 540& in& total& damages& for& the& services& listed& on& the&
invoice& and& the& subsequent& storage& fees,& there& is& nothing& in& the& record& that&
specifies& the& allegations& o f& the& underlying& complaint& or& the& basis& for& the&
7&
award.&&There&is¬hing&to&establish&that&those&services&were&a&direct&result&of&
the&unidentified&third-party&owner’s&property&damage&that&would&be&covered&
under&Muluya’s&policy.&&.$$&M86B9>$@'-)':68/%8$8/+&'7 89)':6),&147&Me.&249,&258,&
86&A.2d&160&(1952).&
[¶16]&&Progressive&was&entitled&to&judgment&as&a&matter&of& law& because&
NWI& failed& to& satisfy& its& burden& of& showing& that& the& allegations& of& the&
underlying&judgment&established&liability&D61'G16G$1/@'?+2+<$&cover ed&by&the&
policy.&&
[¶17]& & Section&2904& provides& that,& when& a& party& “recovers& a& final&
judgment&against&any&other&person&for&any&loss&or&damage&specified&in§ion&
2903,& the& judgment& creditor& shall& be& entitled& to& have& the& insurance& money&
applied& to& the& satisfaction& of& the& judgment& by& bringing& a& civil& action,& i n& h is &
own&name&.&.&.&.”&&24-A&M.R.S.&§&2904&(2018).&&Section&2903&creates&liabil ity&for&
the& insurer&“whenever&such& [covered]& loss&or&damage,&for&which&the&insured&is&
responsible,&occurs.”&&24-A&M.R.S.&§&2903&(2018).&&A&necessary&prerequisite&for&
a& reach-and-apply& action& is& a& final& judgment& for& covered& damage.& & Because&
NWI&has¬&established&that&its&final&judgment&against&Muluya&is&for&covered&
8&
damage,& it& cannot& prevail& in& a& reach-and-apply& action& and& Progressive& was&
entitled&to&judgment&as&a&matter&of&law.
5
&
III.&&CONCLUSI ON&
& [¶18]& & We& hereby& affirm& the& Superior& Court’s& order& granting&
Progressive’s&motion&for& summary&judgment&and&denying&NWI’s&motion.&
The&entry&is:&
Judgment&affirmed.&&
&
& & & & & &
&
William J. Gallitto, III, Esq. (orally), Bergen & Parkinson, LLC, Saco, for
appellant National Wrecker, Inc.
James D. Poliquin, Esq. (orally), Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Portland, for
appellee Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
&
&
York&County&Superior&Court&docket&number&CV-2017-183&
FOR&CLERK&REFERENCE&ONLY&
5
& & We& find& no& merit& to& NWI’s& argument& that& the& Duty& to& Protect& provision& of& the& insurance&
contract&provides&an&independent&basis&for&coverage&and&we&therefore&do¬&discuss&it.&
