“ARISING OUT OF”

Rowe v. State Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 Me. LEXIS 89 (Me., Sept. 23, 2025)

Maine Supreme Court, in the premises liability context, holds that an exclusion in a mobile homeowners policy for injury or damage "arising out of a premises . . . that is not an insured location'” precluded coverage for underlying negligent failure-to-warn claims. The court looked to authority from a workers compensation case, where it stated that “the term ‘arising out of' employment means that there must be some causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the injury, or that the injury, in some proximate way, had its origin, its source, or its cause in the employment. . . . [T]he employment need not be the sole or predominant causal factor for the injury and . . . the causative circumstance need not have been foreseen or expected.” In this case, it found there to be “an immediate relationship between the injury and a condition of the uninsured premises” (specifically, a gap created by the owner-insured at the entrance to a mobile home), and rejected the claimant’s argument that the injury instead arose from the insureds’ negligent conduct in failing to warn. Separately, the court held that the property did not qualify as an “insured location,” reasoning it was not listed in the declarations and there was no evidence the insureds had resided there or acquired it for use as a residence.

Reprinted courtesy of John S. Anooshian, White and Williams LLP, Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP, Elizabeth L. Ferguson, White and Williams LLP, Alexandra M. George, White and Williams LLP and Haley S. Newman, White and Williams LLP

Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Ferguson may be contacted at fergusone@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Newman may be contacted at newmanh@whiteandwilliams.com