Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 28-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28-A, § 2511 (2026)

Exclusive remedy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This Act is the exclusive remedy against servers who may be made defendants under section 2505, for claims by those suffering damages based on the servers' service of liquor.   [PL 1987, c. 45, Pt. A, §4 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 45, §A4 (NEW).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: Peters v. Saft, 597 A.2d 50 (Me. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peters v. Saft, 597 A.2d 50 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “" 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2511. Plaintiff repeats the argument made against the damage cap: if the Act is exclusive and includes a cap on damages, the victims of negligent alcohol servers will be deprived of the full remedy they otherwise would have had at common law.”
Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “1986) (now abrogated by Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 28-A, § 2511); Michnik-Zilberman v.”
Davis v. Dionne, 26 A.3d 801 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 28-A M.R.S. § 2511; see 28-A M.R.S. § 2505.”
Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 618 A.2d 214 (Me. 1992). · cites it 3× “See 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2511. Any common law cause of action has been extinguished.”
Thibodeau v. Slaney, 2000 ME 116 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2511 (1988) (emphasis added).”
Jackson v. Tedd-Lait Post No. 75, 1999 ME 26 (Me. 1999). “” 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2511 (1988). I. Negligence [¶ 6] Jackson argues that the negligence counts are not barred by section 2511 because they are not based on the Legion’s service of liquor.”
Swan v. Sohio Oil Co., 766 F. Supp. 18 (D. Me. 1991). “See 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2511 ("This Act is the exclusive remedy against servers who may be made defendants under section 2505, for claims by those suffering damages based on the servers' service of liquor”).”
Davis v. Rodriguez (Me. Super. Ct 2009). · cites it 4× “See 28-A M.R.S. § 2511 (2008). Dionne filed a motion to dismiss on the same grounds as did Webb and John T.”
Bedard v. Tardif (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 2× “Jones argues that MLLA provides the exclusive remedy for Bedard's claim because it is brought against a server of alcohol and arises out of the service of alcohol. The exclusivity provision of the MLLA provides: "This Act is the exclusive remedy against servers who may be made…”
Blanchette v. Clough (Me. Super. Ct 2007). · cites it 2× “" 28-A M.R.S.A. §2511. Under the Act there is a notice requirement obligating the plaintiff to " .”
Ferrell v. Clark (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 2× “§§ 2508, 2509; and requires plaintiffs to give notice within 180 days of the date of the server's conduct creating liability under the Act, 28-A M.”
Little v. Perry (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “Motion for Judgment on Pleadings by Matthew Perry, Count IV. This count is based on the defendants’ conduct considering their consumption of alcohol.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.