Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 2903 (2026)

Liability absolute when loss occurs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The liability of every insurer which insures any person against accidental loss or damage on account of personal injury or death or on account of accidental damage to property shall become absolute whenever such loss or damage, for which the insured is responsible, occurs. The rendition of a final judgment against the insured for such loss or damage shall not be a condition precedent to the right or obligation of the insurer to make payment on account of such loss or damage.   [PL 1969, c. 132, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 132, §1 (NEW).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Jacques v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 609 A.2d 719 (Me. 1992).
Jacques v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 609 A.2d 719 (Me. 1992). · cites it 6× “In 1990, Jacques sued American, pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2903 and 2904 (1990), in an attempt to reach and apply the proceeds of Mackey's legal malpractice policy to the default judgment.”
North East Ins. v. Young, 26 A.3d 794 (Me. 2011). “See 24-A M.R.S. § 2903 (2010) (rendering an insurer’s liability “absolute whenever such loss or damage, for which the insured is responsible, occurs”); see also 24-A M.”
Demmons v. Tritch, 484 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Me. 2007). “Failure to Give Statutory Notice: 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(1) The magistrate judge’s recommended decision is not merely well reasoned; it is virtually compelled.”
Elliott v. Hanover Ins. Co., 1998 ME 138 (Me. 1998). “24-A M.R.S.A. § 2903 (1990) provides: The liability of every insurer which insures any person against accidental loss or damage on account of personal injury or death or on account of accidental damage to property shall become absolute whenever such loss or damage, for which the…”
Simpson v. Hanover Ins., 588 A.2d 1183 (Me. 1991). “” 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2903 (1990). Although insurance contracts may be subject to implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in this case there is no claim and the record does not disclose any evidence to suggest that Hanover has needlessly prolonged the litigation process.”
Doughty v. Holt (In Re Doughty), 195 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Me. 1996). “And common sense tells me that an important purpose of insurance is to answer for liabilities that an insured cannot pay. Thus, I leave it to Doughty’s insurer to convince the state court that its duty to pay such judgment as the Holts might obtain has been extinguished by…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Lucca, 838 F. Supp. 670 (D. Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “” 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2903: The defenses provided to insurers by the statute are exclusive, Michaud v.”
Nat'l Wrecker, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 ME 153 (Me. 2019). “” 24-A M.R.S. § 2903 (2018). A necessary prerequisite for a reach-and-apply action is a final judgment for covered damage.”
Nat'l Wrecker, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 ME 153 (Me. 2019). “” 24-A M.R.S. § 2903 (2018). A necessary prerequisite for a reach-and-apply action is a final judgment for covered damage.”
N.E. Ins. Co. v. Hutchinson (Me. Super. Ct 2010). · cites it 3× “" Based on this provision the Defendants argue that Weeks was covered under Hutchinson's policy, and that they are entitled to collect damages under the policy resulting from Weeks' negligence on July 3, 2008.”
Colony Ins. Co. v. Danly, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 2d 219 (D. Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2903. Colony cannot, by its policy language, thwart the Maine statutory language and the holding of Patrons.”
Allen v. Nautilus Ins. Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2013). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 24-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2903 and 2904 (2012), the Aliens seek to reach and apply insurance money available under an insurance policy ofNautilus Insurance Company ("Nautilus") and/or its agent Regional Excess Underwriters, LLC ("REU").”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 24-A, § 2903(1) — 1 case
Demmons v. Tritch, 484 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Me. 2007). “Failure to Give Statutory Notice: 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2903(1) The magistrate judge’s recommended decision is not merely well reasoned; it is virtually compelled.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.