April 7, 2012

PL 100--Introduction to Paralegal Studies
• Hello PL 100 class,

Here's the assignment for Week #12.

This week’s assignment starts with reading Chapter 16 of the text, “Real Property and Insurance Law”.

For the writing assignment for this week, I’ve chosen an insurance policy interpretation question. Insurance policy cases tend to be a little dry (as is this one) and so I’ve chosen a case in which the underlying facts (if not the Supreme Court case) are interesting: the lobster trap wars of Matinicus Island. If you are interested in reading the background story of that conflict, you can find links to some of it below:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0724/p20s01-lign.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0725/p20s01-lign.html

http://www.soundingsonline.com/features/in-depth/241232-lobster-wars-good-people-doing-bad-things

Start out by reading the Maine Supreme Court case of Mitchell v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2011 ME 133, 36 A.3d 876.

The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.

To access the case, go to

http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html

Select Published Opinions

--scroll down to “2011 Opinions”

--select Mitchell v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2011 ME 133 (December 22, 2011).

The case involves a claim by Mitchell against his own insurance company. Mitchell was sued by someone (Victor Ames) who accused him of being part of a group that, among other acts, was “converting” (stealing) lobster traps owned by Ames.

When a person buys insurance, one part of the coverage he buys is for the insurance company to come in with a lawyer and defend a lawsuit against him (a “duty to defend”) so that he does not have to shell out the money to go hire a lawyer himself. But Allstate insurance, our client, just said no. Allstate’s position was that the insurance policy specifically excluded coverage for this type of action. Why? Because the policy excludes coverage for intentional acts by the insured (Mitchell), and the tort of “conversion” is by definition an intentional tort. That was Allstate’s position, but the Law Court did not accept it.

Allstate is befuddled about this could have happened. You, because of your superior kills in clear, simple, legal explanations, have been assigned the task of drafting a letter for your attorney’s review and signature, that explains to Allstate what happened, and why they lost the case. You don’t need to give a background of the facts of the case (Allstate already knows those), but you will need to explain the law, and how it was applied to the facts of this case.

Remember that you are not writing to lawyers, but to insurance executives who study rates of loss and premiums—they know insurance, not law. Your explanations must be clear and simple, but accurate.

How many grammatical mistakes and misspellings do you want in a letter to the client? None.

Your letter will be due by noon on Sunday, April 15th.

If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me with them.