Levine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

RUDMAN, J.,

with whom CALKINS, J., joins, dissenting.

[¶ 15] Because I disagree with the way the Court frames and resolves the issue before us today, I respectfully dissent. The issue is whether State Farm’s uninsured/underinsured vehicle policy provides less coverage than is required by Maine’s uninsured/underinsured vehicle law. The Court, focusing on legislative intent, holds that State Farm’s policy does not imper-missibly limit coverage. Upon review of the plain language of the statute, however, it is clear that the insurance contract provides less coverage than is required under the law.

[¶…