Maine's top court just handed insurers the keys on settlement decisions – even when the policyholder wants to keep fighting.
On May 19, 2026, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a trial court ruling that let MMG Insurance Co. settle a timber trespass case over its own insured's objection, then close the file for good.
The dispute started in August 2023, when Carissa Daniels sued Patrick R. O'Brien and Linda S. Labas, alleging O'Brien had cut trees and bushes on her property in breach of Maine's timber trespass statute, 14 M.R.S. § 7552. O'Brien tendered the defense to his homeowner's carrier, MMG. The insurer first took the case under a reservation of rights, then dropped the reservation and reached a settlement with Daniels.
O'Brien wanted no part of it. He wanted his day in court, and he wanted Daniels's claim to fail on the merits. The reason was strategic. A loss for Daniels would set up his own claim against her for wrongful use of civil process, a tort that requires the earlier case to have ended in the defendant's favor.
As part of the settlement, Daniels moved to dismiss her complaint with prejudice. MMG, anticipating O'Brien's objection, moved to intervene and backed the dismissal. O'Brien asked the court to keep the case alive so he could mount his defense. After a nontestimonial hearing in August 2024, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice in February 2025. O'Brien appealed.
The Supreme Judicial Court was not moved. Writing for the panel, Chief Justice Stanfill said the only purpose in keeping the case on the docket would be to try to manufacture an element of O'Brien's planned wrongful use of civil process claim – and that was not a good enough reason to force a plaintiff who wanted out to keep litigating.
The court also leaned on broader civil procedure principles, noting that plaintiffs, like defendants, are entitled to walk away from their own claims and live with the consequences.
O'Brien argued separately that MMG had no contractual right to settle without his sign-off. The court declined to engage. Because O'Brien had not filed a claim against MMG, the carrier's authority to settle was simply not before it. The trial court had also made findings that the settlement was reasonable and that MMG had acted in good faith. According to the panel, those findings should not have been made – but the surplus did not change the outcome.
In a footnote, the court flagged the policy language point for any future fight. Citing Couch on Insurance, the decision noted the long-standing rule that where a policy gives the insurer the right and duty to defend covered claims and the right to settle within limits, the insurer does not need the insured's consent to settle with a third party, even if doing so wipes out the insured's potential malicious prosecution claim.
For claims professionals, the message is clean. Where the policy gives the carrier the right and duty to defend and the right to settle within limits, an insured who wants to keep litigating for collateral reasons - vindication, a counterclaim, a future malicious prosecution theory – is unlikely to get traction in Maine. And an insured's objection, on its own, does not turn a settlement call into a fight the court has to referee.
Judgment affirmed. Case closed.
