Me.,2012.
Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Farrington
37 A.3d 305, 2012 ME 23 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Background: Rental car company’s insurer brought action against renter alleging breach of contract in connection
with damage to motor vehicle loaned to renter by company. The Superior Court, Business and Consumer Docket,
Horton, J., entered judgment in favor of insurer. Renter appealed.
[1] Insurance 217 3510
217 Insurance
217XXX Recovery of Payments by Insurer
217k3510 k. Subrogation against insured; “anti–subrogation rule”. Most Cited Cases
arising out of damage to rental car; unlike liability coverage, which insured people against losses owed to others by
217 Insurance
217XIII Contracts and Policies
217XIII(G) Rules of Construction
217k1805 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
217XIII Contracts and Policies
217XIII(G) Rules of Construction
217k1807 k. Function of, and limitations on, courts, in general. Most Cited Cases
217k1811 Intention
217k1812 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
When interpreting an insurance contract, the Supreme Judicial Court’s function is not to make a new contract for
the parties by enlarging or diminishing its terms, but is to ascertain the meaning and intention of the contract actual-
ly made.
Panel: ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
GORMAN, J.
[¶ 1] Joshuah P. Farrington appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket
rental contract, Farrington agreed that he would return the vehicle in the same condition it was in when he obtained
it and that he was responsible for any loss to the vehicle. He also declined the option to obtain a waiver to insure him
for any damage to the vehicle. Farrington struck a moose while driving the vehicle loaned to him by Darling’s, caus-
ing over six thousand dollars in damage to the vehicle.
[¶ 3] Philadelphia Indemnity, Darling’s insurer, compensated Darling’s pursuant to the property damage provi-
FN1. Philadelphia Indemnity asserts that the claim was paid pursuant to comprehensive coverage. The rec-
ord does not disclose whether Darling’s invoked comprehensive or collision coverage, and it is irrelevant to
the disposition of the appeal.
[¶ 4] Philadelphia Indemnity, as Darling’s subrogee, filed a complaint against Farrington asserting that he
breached the rental contract by damaging the vehicle.FN2 The parties stipulated to the relevant facts, from which the
217k1807 k. Function of, and limitations on, courts, in general. Most Cited Cases
217k1811 Intention
217k1812 k. In general. Most Cited Cases
When interpreting an insurance contract, the Supreme Judicial Court’s function is not to make a new contract for
the parties by enlarging or diminishing its terms, but is to ascertain the meaning and intention of the contract actual-
ly made.
Panel: ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
GORMAN, J.
[¶ 1] Joshuah P. Farrington appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket
rental contract, Farrington agreed that he would return the vehicle in the same condition it was in when he obtained
it and that he was responsible for any loss to the vehicle. He also declined the option to obtain a waiver to insure him
for any damage to the vehicle. Farrington struck a moose while driving the vehicle loaned to him by Darling’s, caus-
ing over six thousand dollars in damage to the vehicle.
[¶ 3] Philadelphia Indemnity, Darling’s insurer, compensated Darling’s pursuant to the property damage provi-
FN1. Philadelphia Indemnity asserts that the claim was paid pursuant to comprehensive coverage. The rec-
ord does not disclose whether Darling’s invoked comprehensive or collision coverage, and it is irrelevant to
the disposition of the appeal.
[¶ 4] Philadelphia Indemnity, as Darling’s subrogee, filed a complaint against Farrington asserting that he
breached the rental contract by damaging the vehicle.FN2 The parties stipulated to the relevant facts, from which the