The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court's summary judgment ruling in favor of State Mutual Insurance Company in *Rowe v. State Mutual Insurance Company*, decided Sept. 23, 2025. The case centered on judgment creditor Alicia Rowe's attempt to use Maine's reach-and-apply statute to access insurance funds to satisfy a judgment against property owners William and Gwen Chase.
Justice Lawrence, writing for the court, upheld the Waldo County Superior Court's decision granting summary judgment to State Mutual. The underlying dispute arose from Rowe's negligence claim against the Chases, who were insured by State Mutual, for allegedly failing to warn her of unsafe conditions on their property that resulted in her injury.
Rowe brought the action under Maine's reach-and-apply statute, 24-A M.R.S. § 2904, which allows judgment creditors to pursue insurance proceeds directly from insurers to satisfy outstanding judgments against debtors. As the court explained, citing the 2003 *Ashe v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car* decision, the reach-and-apply statute "enables a judgment creditor to have insurance money applied to the satisfaction of [a] judgment by bringing an action against the judgment debtor's insurer if [there] was insur[ance coverage] for the liability forming the basis of the [underlying] judgment."
The reach-and-apply mechanism serves as an important tool for judgment creditors in Maine, particularly in cases where the judgment debtor may lack sufficient assets to satisfy a court judgment but maintains insurance coverage that could cover the underlying liability. The statute provides a direct avenue for creditors to access insurance funds without having to rely on the cooperation of the judgment debtor.
In this case, the Superior Court determined that State Mutual was entitled to summary judgment, meaning the court found no genuine issues of material fact that would require a trial. The specific grounds for the summary judgment ruling were not detailed in the available portion of the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion, but the high court's affirmance indicates agreement with the trial court's legal analysis.
The case was argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Jan. 8, 2025, with a five-justice panel including Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, and Douglas. Justice Horton had participated in the appeal but retired before the opinion was certified for publication.
The court's decision provides guidance on the application of Maine's reach-and-apply statute in creditor-insurer disputes. While the full reasoning behind the court's affirmance was not included in the available excerpt, the ruling suggests that Rowe was unable to establish the necessary legal foundation to compel State Mutual to apply insurance proceeds toward satisfying her judgment against the Chases.
Reach-and-apply actions require creditors to demonstrate several elements, including the existence of a valid judgment against the insured party and insurance coverage that applies to the underlying liability. The creditor must also show that the insurance policy covers the specific type of claim that formed the basis of the original judgment.
The underlying negligence claim against the Chases involved premises liability, a common area of homeowner's insurance coverage. Property owners have a legal duty to warn visitors of known dangerous conditions on their property, and failure to provide adequate warning can result in liability for resulting injuries. However, the specific circumstances of Rowe's injury and the nature of the alleged unsafe conditions were not detailed in the court record excerpt.
The timing of the case reflects the often lengthy process of insurance litigation, with the case docketed as Wal-24-236, argued in January 2025, and decided in September 2025. The reach-and-apply statute referenced in the case has been subject to amendments since the underlying events, though the court noted these changes were not relevant to the current appeal.
For practitioners handling similar creditor rights cases, the decision underscores the importance of carefully establishing all required elements under the reach-and-apply statute before pursuing insurance proceeds. The affirmance of summary judgment suggests that courts will require clear proof of coverage and liability before compelling insurers to pay judgment creditors.
The ruling also highlights the protective role that summary judgment can play for insurance companies facing reach-and-apply actions where the legal foundation for the creditor's claim may be insufficient. Insurance companies can use summary judgment motions to efficiently resolve cases where creditors cannot establish the necessary legal prerequisites for accessing policy proceeds.
The decision adds to Maine's body of law interpreting the reach-and-apply statute and will serve as precedent for future cases involving creditor attempts to access insurance coverage for judgment satisfaction. The case demonstrates the careful balance courts must strike between protecting creditors' rights to collect valid judgments and ensuring that insurance companies are not compelled to pay claims that fall outside the scope of their contractual obligations.