Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Eryn Steele was married to Chris Steele when Ryan Botticello allegedly assaulted Chris. Chris sued Ryan and his father for damages related to his injuries and later settled and released his claim against the Botticellos. Later, Eryn sued the Botticellos for damages related to her loss of consortium. The Botticellos asserted the affirmative defense of release in their amended answer and moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Botticellos, concluding that, under Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp., Chris's release barred Eryn's consortium claim because it was derivative of Chris's underlying tort claim. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of summary judgment, holding that an injured person's settlement and release of a claim for personal injuries does not preclude that person's spouse from recovering for loss of consortium when the spouse was not a party to the settlement and release. Remanded.

Plaintiff Scott Hackett aggravated a pre-existing low back injury while working as a long distance truck driver for Western Express. After Hackett was terminated for reasons unconnected to his injury, Hackett filed a petition for award to the Workers' Compensation Board and was awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits for a gradual injury to his lower back. When calculating Hackett's weekly wage, the hearing officer (1) excluded the nine cents per mile Hackett received as per diem pay, concluding that it was paid to cover special expenses, and (2) concluded that the per diem payments were not a fringe benefit that could be included to a limited extent in average weekly wage. Hackett appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the hearing officer's decision but remanded for a recalculation of Hackett's fringe benefits pursuant to Me. W.C.B. R. ch. 1, 5(1).

In 2004, Matthew Doucette injured his back while working for Sysco. Doucette did not lose any earnings as a result of his injury and had no further problems with his back until 2008 when he reinjured it while working for a different employer. In 2009, Doucette filed a petition for award against Sysco for the 2004 injury, alleging entitlement to compensation from 2004 to the present. Doucette also asserted a fourteen-day rule violation against Sysco for failing to file a notice of controversy (NOC) within fourteen days of receiving the petition. Although there was some disagreement over the date of the filing, the Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer found the NOC was filed on the fifteenth day and determined Sysco was in violation of the fourteen-day rule. Sysco appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing officer did not err in determining a fourteen-day rule violation occurred, (2) the hearing officer did not err in awarding total benefits from the date of the injury when the employee suffered no loss of earnings as a result of the injury, and (3) the award was not excessive and unfair.

sPlaintiff Craig Burns was injured when an overhead garage door struck him on the head when he was at work. Plaintiff sued the installer of the door, Defendant Architectural Doors and Windows (ADW), on a products liability theory only to discover that ADW did not manufacture or supply the alleged defective door. The trial court granted ADWâs motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not allowing him to present evidence for alternate theories under which he could hold ADW accountable. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial courtâs actions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial courtâs judgment in favor of ADW.

MMG Insurance Company (MMG) appealed a summary judgment entered in Superior Court in favor of Jennifer Jacobi. Ms. Jacobi rented a home from MMG's insured, Barbara Bennett. Ms. Bennett left Maine to live in New Mexico, but her seventeen-year-old son remained in Maine in an "in-law" apartment attached to the home. The son repeatedly sexually assaulted Ms. Jacobi's seven-year-old daughter. Ms. Jacobi reported the incidents to the police, and informed Ms. Bennett. Ms. Jacobi filed suit against Ms. Bennett on multiple grounds. In particular, her claim for "negligent infliction of emotional distress" served as one of the grounds for review by the Supreme Court. Ms. Bennett and her son were insured by a homeowner's policy issued by MMG. The policy that covered Ms. Bennett had a $300,000 limit per occurrence for "bodily injury." MMG notified Ms. Bennett that it would not participate in Ms. Jacobi's action because the policy contained an exclusion for claims arising from sexual abuse. Ms. Bennett failed to file an answer to Ms. Jacobi's complaint, and a default was entered against her. Ms. Jacobi sought enforcement of her default judgment against MMG, and eventually won at trial. MMG appealed, arguing that the court misinterpreted its insurance policy. The Supreme Court found there was no basis for recovery of damages under the MMG homeowner's policy. The Court reversed the judgment in favor of Ms. Jacobi from the lower court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Dana Ramsdell contends that a provision in his 2006 divorce decree is ambiguous. While his divorce petition was pending, Mr. Ramsdell won a personal injury lawsuit. Under the terms of the divorce decree, Ms. Worden would receive twenty percent of the âpotential inchoate claimâ from the personal injury lawsuit. Arguing that the term âinchoate claimâ was ambiguous, Mr. Ramsdell petitioned the district court for reconsideration of the divorce courtâs award to his ex-wife, money from his personal injury suit. The district court affirmed the award. The Supreme Court, finding no error in the lower courtsâ interpretation of the divorce judgment or its calculation of the money she received, affirmed the order lower courtâs decision.