Smitke v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 38927
| Decision Date | 23 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 38927,38927 |
| Citation | 264 Minn. 212,118 N.W.2d 217 |
| Parties | Matthew R. SMITKE, Jr., Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy, excluding from 'MEDICAL EXPENSE COVERAGE' and 'Protection Against UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE' a relative of a named insured residing in the same household on the basis that such relative himself owned an automobile, Held neither ambiguous nor unreasonable.
Cavan O'Neill, Duluth, for appellant.
Reavill, Jenswold, Neimeyer & Johnson and John J. Killen, Jr., Duluth, for respondent.
Appeal from a summary judgment denying coverage to plaintiff under an automobile liability insurance policy. Certain provisions of the basic policy designed to extend coverage for medical expense and for protection against an uninsured motorist to a 'relative' of the named insured were made an integral part of the policy. Another provision defines 'relative.' The question presented is whether such provisions, which exclude plaintiff, a son of the insured, because of his ownership of a private passenger automobile, are ambiguous or unreasonable and capricious in effect.
There are no disputed facts. Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result of an automobile collision which occurred while he was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and negligently operated by an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident defendant had issued to plaintiff's father its so-called 'Valu-Pact' automobile liability insurance policy. The usual provisions of such a policy were extended to afford to the named insured and any 'relative' residing in his household 'MEDICAL EXPENSE COVERAGE' and 'Protection Against UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE.' When plaintiff was injured he was a relative residing in the household of his father but he also owned an automobile.
Defendant denied coverage for both medical expense and protection against the negligence of the uninsured motorist on the grounds that the policy excluded any relative who 'owns a private passenger automobile' and that the automobile owned by the plaintiff was not itself covered by the policy. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appeals from the judgment subsequently entered.
Plaintiff claims that the pertinent provisions of the policy are ambiguous and also that they are unreasonable and capricious in effect.
Unlike many insurance policies, this policy is in booklet form. It begins on page 3 with provisions relating to liability coverage and immediately following is that part of the policy designated 'MEDICAL EXPENSE COVERAGE'; then follow, on pages 4 and 5, provisions relating to 'Persons Insured.' It is clear that coverage for medical expense incurred 'while occupying or through being struck by an automobile * * * of any type' is afforded to both the named insured and any relative, as defined in the policy. Immediately following these provisions, on pages 5 and 6, are listed numerous 'Definitions (as) used in this policy.' Each word or phrase defined is printed in boldface type. Among the definitions is the following:
"relative' means a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household, provided neither he nor his spouse owns a private passenger automobile.'
After exclusionary provisions relating to the liability and medical expense coverages not here pertinent, there appears on page 8 that part of the policy designated 'Protection Against UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE.' 1 Immediately following, on page 9, appears:
'Persons Insured
'The following are insureds under the Uninsured Motorists Coverage:
'(a) the named insured and any relative.'
1. In determining the questions presented, the pertinent provisions must be read and studied independently and in context with all relevant provisions and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford
...not ambiguous, and we agree with their conclusions. Mun Quon Kok v. Pacific Ins. Co., 51 Haw. 470, 462 P.2d 909; Smitke v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 264 Minn. 212, 118 N.W.2d 217. The common and ordinary meaning of 'household' as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is: 't......
-
Elledge v. Warren
...v. American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, 183 Neb. 109, 158 N.W.2d 238 (Sup.Ct. Nebraska 1968); Smitke v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 264 Minn. 212, 118 N.W.2d 217 (1962). Aside from the fact that the majority opinion is contrary to what I believe is the established jurisprudenc......
-
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. International Marine Underwriters
... ... Princess, a vessel owned by Jarvis, a charter boat company operating on the St. Croix River. At the time of the ... During that period, the policy's "Protection and Indemnity Clause" obligated IMU to pay "such sums as the assured, as ... and the language of the policy as a whole." Smitke ... 768 N.W.2d 371 ... v. Travelers Indem. Co., 264 Minn ... ...
-
Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington v. Miller
...nor inconsistent with the objective of extending coverage to the residents of the named insured's household. Smitke v. Travelers Indem. Co., 264 Minn. 212, 118 N.W.2d 217 (1962). Defendants' final argument is that the plaintiff has waived or is estopped from asserting the policy provision i......