Mun Quon Kok v. Pacific Ins. Co.

• Citation: 462 P.2d 909,51 Haw. 470
• Decision Date: 11 December 1969
• Docket Number: No. 4855,4855
• Parties: MUN QUON KOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC INSURANCE CO., Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Hawai'i

Page 909

462 P.2d 909

51 Haw. 470

MUN QUON KOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC INSURANCE CO., Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4855.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Dec. 11, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where insurance policy clearly incorporates definitions by reference, there is no ambiguity, nor room for construction.

2. Insured and father, who live in separate residences are not residents of the same household merely because insured takes two meals a day to father and delivers mail to father.

Ken Harimoto, Honolulu (Chuck & Fujiyama, Honolulu, of counsel), for appellant.

Ronald D. Libkuman, Honolulu (James F. Ventura, Honolulu, on the brief; Libkuman, Shimabukuro & Ventura, Honolulu, of counsel), for appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and MARUMOTO, ABE, LEVINSON and KOBAYASHI, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The only question on this appeal is whether Mun Quon Kok, appellant, is an insured within the uninsured motorists provisions of the policy issued to his son. The uninsured motorists portion of the policy, part IV, provides:

'Definitions.

The definitions under Part I, except the definition of 'insured,' apply to Part IV, and under Part IV:

'insured' means:

(a) the named insured and any relative.'

Part I provides:

'Definitions.

'relative' means a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household.'

We hold that part IV of the policy unambiguously and clearly states that insured means the named insured and any relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household. Part IV specifically incorporates the definitions under Part I. Part I defines relative. Appellant has presented no persuasive argument or legal authority for the proposition that the above provisions are ambiguous. Smitke v. Travelers Indemnity Company, 264 Minn. 212, 118 N.W.2d 217 (1962), involved almost identical provisions. There the insurance policy on page 5 listed numerous 'definitions as used in this policy' including a definition of relative as a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household. Page 9, in the uninsured motorists provision, provided that insured meant named insured and any relative. The uninsured motorists provision did not directly incorporate the definition by reference The court held that the definition of relative applied throughout the policy, including the uninsured motorists provision, that the policy was clear and unambiguous and thus there was no room for interpretation or construction.

The only question left is whether appellant is a relative of the named insured and is a resident of the same household as the named insured. Appellant is the father of the named insured. The stipulated facts show: (1) appellant rented a room on Maunakea Street, Honolulu; (2) named insured lived at 1457 Pule Place, Honolulu; (3) named insured took two meals a day to his father at his rooming house; (4) appellant received his mail at named insured's house and named insured took the mail to appellant.

The lower court found that these facts did not make appellant a resident of the same household. We agree. Granting that insurance policies are construed in favor of coverage, Appleton v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 16 A.D.2d 361, 228 N.Y.S.2d 442 (1962), and that actual residence under a common roof is not an absolute requirement, appellant has cited no cases which would indicate that the above facts are sufficient to make a...