Latest 2 Cases: Corinth Pellets, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co. (Contracts), State v. Gordon (Criminal Law)

What Accounts for the Increase in Law School Applications This Year?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar comments on the apparent increase in the number of law school applications this year and offers some thoughts as to the reasons behind the trend. Dean Amar suggests that increased job opportunities and heightened social awareness might be behind the higher numbers of applications.

Read More

Corinth Pellets, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co.

Citation: 2021 ME 10

Opinion Date: February 23, 2021

Judge: Horton

Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing for failure to state a claim Corinth Pellets, LLC's complaint alleging that a fire loss at Corinth's wood pellet mill was covered under a commercial property insurance policy issued by Arch, holding that the superior court erred in its interpretation of Maine's surplus lines insurance law, Me. Rev. Stat. 24-A, 2009-A. On appeal, Corinth argued that the fire loss was covered under the policy, despite having occurred after the policy term had expired, because Arch failed notify Corinth of its intention not to renew the policy as required by section 2009-A, and therefore, the policy was automatically renewed at the end of the term. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that section 2009-A(1) requires a surplus lines insurer to give written notice of its intent either to cancel a policy or not to renew a policy at least fourteen days before the effective date of cancellation or nonrenewal.

State v. Gordon

Citation: 2021 ME 9

Opinion Date: February 23, 2021

Judge: Humphrey

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the twelve-year concurrent sentences imposed on Defendant for three counts of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs months after the parties entered into a plea agreement involving the dismissal of other charges, holding that the trial court did not misapply sentencing principles or abuse its sentencing authority. Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs and was sentenced to twelve-year concurrent sentences. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by imposing the maximum sentences allowed by the plea agreement and disregarded sentencing factors when it refused to suspend a portion of Defendant's sentences and order probation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that concurrent, unsuspended twelve-year sentences with no period of probation were appropriate for the three aggravated trafficking convictions.