Keith R. Millikin

The respondent was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The court noted a history of delay by the applicant and previous findings of contempt of court.

The court fixed costs at 70% of substantial indemnity, ordering the applicant to pay $11,190.82 personally, rather than out of the estate.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a question of law regarding the interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy after thefts of medical marijuana plants grown by the insured.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on liability and argued the plants were covered as personal property under the policy’s general contents coverage.

The court held that the specific policy provision addressing “trees, shrubs and plants” governed and limited recovery to $1,000 per plant.

The court rejected the argument that the plants fell under the broader contents provision and also found that the grow‑operation exclusion did not apply to the theft of the plants themselves.

As the insurer had already paid the maximum amount permitted under the policy, the plaintiffs’ additional claims were dismissed.