# Gribizis v. Cray > Superior Court of Maine ยท December 8, 2011 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809699 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Maine - **Decided:** December 8, 2011 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Joyce A. Wheeler - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809699 ## Opinion text STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET N.0: CV-11-~ ! VA v1J--- Cu IV\- t ::2 'iS/ ;;>D/1 v RUDINA GRIBIZIS and WILLIAM GRIBIZIS, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID CRAY and PATRONS OXFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants Before the court is defendant, David Cray's, Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and defendant, Patrons Oxford Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss. BACKGROUND Rudina Gribizis and William Gribizis ("Plaintiffs") filed their amended complaint on August 8, 2011 1 seeking various forms of relief from Defendant David Cray ("Defendant Cray") and Patrons Oxford Insurance Company ("Patrons) arising from an automobile accident occurring on Franklin Arterial in Portland, Maine on December 20, 2007. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Cray failed to yield when turning left onto Fore Street from the Franklin Arterial Inbound. (Am. Compl. 'li'li 5-6.) 1 The original complaint was filed on February 24, 2011. The case was originally brought earlier but was dismissed without prejudice after mediation and after withdrawal of the Plaintiffs' attorney. Attorney John Veilleux of Norman, Hanson & DeTroy represented both Defendants. He answered the original complaint on behalf of both defendants and represented both at the M.R. Civ. P. 16B mediation conference that took place on July 21, 2011. Prior to the mediation session, Patrons had paid the Plaintiffs' claims for property damage and medical payments pursuant to their insurance contract but had not paid any part of the uninsured motorist claim made by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that the mediation conference was the first time they became aware that Patrons contested Defendant Cray' s liability for the accident. They allege that Patrons changed its position and has acted in bad faith with respect to this claim. The Plaintiffs then sought leave to amend the complaint to add a claim under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. That motion was granted and now the Defendants seek dismissal of that count of the amended complaint. DISCUSSION There are two motions pending before the court. First, Defendant Patrons filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to dismiss Count IV of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Second, Defendant Cray filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Cray's Motion to Dismiss simply joins and incorporates by reference Defendant Patrons' Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463,465 (Me. 1994). The court examines "the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff 2 to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Id. When testing the complaint under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Id. "Dismissal is warranted when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim." Johanson v. Dunnington, 2001 ME 169, -J\,---2.,.,/i)--+J\_"2-_ JiJfii;! Wheeler Justice, Superior Court 6 Plaintiff's Attorney - Philip Mancini Esq Defendant Patrons Oxford Attorney - Mark Franco Esq --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809699. Public record. Not legal advice.