Maine high court: insurer need not pay after renter falls into gap at mobile home

Sept. 23, 2025 — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Waldo County Superior Court ruling that State Mutual Insurance Company is not liable under a Master Mobile Homeowners policy for injuries sustained by Alicia Rowe on Oct. 30, 2019, when she fell into a gap between a mobile home and the entry stairs on property on Winnecook Road in Burnham.

The court’s opinion, written by Justice Lawrence, said the policy’s exclusions applied because Rowe’s injury “arose out of” a condition of the uninsured premises and because the Winnecook Road property was not an “insured location” under the policy language and mobilehome endorsement.

Rowe had sued the property owners, William and Gwen Chase, alleging negligence for failing to warn her about a roughly 12‑inch gap the Chases left between the mobile home and entry stairs while replacing a door and siding. William Chase, the opinion notes, admitted in discovery that he should have warned Rowe. Rowe’s complaint led to a stipulated judgment in January 2022 for $500,000, with the Chases paying $50,000 personally.

State Mutual had issued a Master Mobile Homeowners policy with a policy period of Nov. 30, 2018, to Nov. 30, 2019. The policy’s declarations page identified a different property on Troy Road as the covered premises; the Winnecook Road location where the injury occurred was not listed. State Mutual issued a declination letter on Jan. 29, 2020, saying the policy did not cover Rowe’s claim because the Winnecook Road property was not an insured location. The insurer later agreed to defend the Chases subject to a reservation of rights (letter dated June 25, 2021) and then contested coverage in a reach‑and‑apply action filed by Rowe on May 3, 2022.

In its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court applied the reach‑and‑apply statute in effect at the time, 24‑A M.R.S. § 2904, and explained that a judgment creditor seeking recovery under the statute must show that the underlying damages fall within the insurer’s policy. The opinion relied on a causal‑connection test from Maine precedent and related authority, concluding there was “a clear causal link running from the gap between the entryway stairs and the mobile home entrance to Rowe’s bodily injury, as required by the causal connection test from Standring.” (Lawrence, J.)

The court then addressed the policy’s definition of “insured location.” Under the policy and its Mobilehome Endorsement, the term “residence premises” is defined to mean the mobile home and other structures “owned or leased by you where you reside” and those shown as the residence premises in the Declarations. The opinion concluded the policy language requires that an insured actually use the premises as the insured’s residence; because the Winnecook Road property was not shown on the declarations page, and there was no evidence the Chases resided there or acquired it during the policy period “for your use as a residence,” the property did not qualify as an insured location. The court noted the policy also contemplates and excludes premises that insureds rent to others.

State Mutual had also alleged the stipulated judgment was the product of collusion and asserted policy‑condition breaches; the insurer raised those defenses in the counterclaim. The Superior Court granted State Mutual’s motion for partial summary judgment on May 8, 2024, finding no coverage under the policy; Rowe’s cross‑motion became moot. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, concluding Rowe had not satisfied her burden to show the awarded damages fell within the insurance contract.

The ruling resolves coverage questions in a case that turned on the intersection of the reach‑and‑apply statute, policy exclusions for noninsured premises, and the policy’s residency‑based definition of an insured location. The entry in the opinion is: “Judgment affirmed.”