Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper
Decision Date | 11 February 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-153,86-153 |
Citation | 732 P.2d 534 |
Parties | COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant (Defendant), v. James L. STAMPER, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
J.N. Murdock of Reeves & Murdock, Casper, for appellant (defendant).
Richard H. Peek, Casper, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C.J., * THOMAS, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ., and GUTHRIE, J., Retired.
This appeal presents the question whether an insured, under a single automobile insurance policy encompassing several vehicles may "stack" or "pyramid" uninsured-motorists and medical-payment provisions for recovery of injury and medical expenses sustained in an accident involving one of the covered vehicles.
The plaintiff-appellee, James L. Stamper, was involved in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist, and sustained bodily injuries. At the time, he had an automobile insurance policy issued to him as named insured by the defendant-appellant, Commercial Union Insurance Company (the insurer), covering three vehicles with uninsured-motorists and medical-payments provisions with the face amount of $20,000 and $500, respectively. The trial judge held for Stamper by granting summary judgment, and determined the recovery to be the aggregate sum of coverage for all vehicles of $60,000 uninsured-motorists liability and $1,500 for medical benefits. This appeal is from that judgment.
The stated issues are:
I. Does public policy of Wyoming prohibit the limitation of damages that will be paid for any one accident under a single insurance policy pursuant to its uninsured-motorists and medical-payments provisions so that a policy provision to the contrary is void?
II. Did the trial court err in finding as a matter of law that the insurance policy was ambiguous regarding total coverage, and by granting summary judgment to the insured by stacking or aggregating the policy coverage for each vehicle to achieve the totals of $60,000 and $1,500?
The insurer argues that Stamper should not have the benefit of coverage as to all three vehicles but can recover only the amount provided for the single vehicle which was occupied at the time of the occurrence--or $20,000 for uninsured-motorists coverage and $500 for medical payments.
We agree, and will reverse.
The standard of review for summary judgment appeals has been well established by this court.
" Schutkowski v. Carey, Wyo., 725 P.2d 1057, 1059 (1986).
The litigants here agree on the essential facts, so that separate inquiry into the facts is not necessary in application of the law for appeal disposition.
In applying the applicable stage analysis of a summary-judgment situation as enunciated in Cordova v. Gosar, Wyo., 719 P.2d 625 (1986), we find that this case encompasses a substantive legal issue disposition or a Stage Five summary judgment.
(Emphasis added.) 719 P.2d at 636.
With the parties only disagreeing on the interpretation and scope of the insurance agreement, we have for disposition questions of law involving the application of public policy, and the interpretation and construction of the contract. Western Utilities Contractors, Inc. v. City of Casper, Wyo., 731 P.2d 24 (1986); Burk v. Burzynski, Wyo., 672 P.2d 419 (1983); Hursh Agency, Inc. v. Wigwam Homes, Inc., Wyo., 664 P.2d 27 (1983); Rouse v. Munroe, Wyo., 658 P.2d 74 (1983); Tate v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., Wyo., 647 P.2d 58 (1982); Busch Development, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, Wyo., 645 P.2d 65 (1982); and Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463 (1980).
In delineating public policy, the key is found in our identifying and giving force and effect to that public policy of the State of Wyoming announced through applicable statutes or controlling precedent. Allstate Insurance Company v. Wyoming Insurance Department, Wyo., 672 P.2d 810, 815 (1983). A statutory review is necessary, since, although "parties have the right to embody in their insurance contract whatever lawful terms they wish," Alm v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Wyo., 369 P.2d 216, 217 (1962), citing Rosenblum v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 51 Wyo. 195, 65 P.2d 399, 109 A.L.R. 911 (1937), "the insurance agreement must not conflict with pertinent statutes or public policy," Allstate Insurance Company v. Wyoming Insurance Department, supra 672 P.2d at 816, citing McKay v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Wyo., 421 P.2d 166 (1966), and Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Mallon, Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d 1100 (1980).
The Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage Act (§§ 31-10-101 through 31-10-104, W.S.1977) provides in § 31-10-101 that:
(Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, § 31-9-102(a)(x), W.S.1977, states:
"(x) 'Proof of financial responsibility' means proof of ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of said proof, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) because of bodily injury to or death of one (1) person in any one (1) accident, and subject to said limit for one (1) person, in the amount of twenty thousand dollars dollars ($20,000.00) because of bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more persons in any one (1) accident, and in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one (1) accident." 1
Scadden v. State, Wyo., 732 P.2d 1036, 1042 (1987).
Taking the plain meaning of the words used in reading and interpreting the applicable statutes as promulgated and enacted by the Wyoming legislature, it is apparent that the purpose of uninsured-motorists insurance coverage is to provide to innocent automobile accident victims an opportunity to procure a means of insulating themselves from damages incurred as a result of unfortunate and far too frequently occurring automobile collisions with uninsured motorists. Under Wyoming law, the purchase of uninsured-motorists insurance is not mandatory, but is a matter of discretion for the individual. The legislature intended that the insured be given the opportunity of subscribing to such coverage, and set a minimum coverage, allowing the insured to elect that minimum or any greater amount.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Republic Ins. Co.
...Law and Practice, Sec. 7384 (1943). A reordered and restated version of these same principles is found in Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper, 732 P.2d 534, 539 (Wyo.1987): Basic tenets stated in McKay v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, supra, 421 P.2d at 168, and ap......
-
Compass Ins. Co. v. Cravens, Dargan and Co.
...General principles of construction will be followed when interpreting conditions of an insurance agreement. Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Stamper, Wyo., 732 P.2d 534 (1987). Two basic standards of construction applicable in Wyoming 1. " 'Such [insurance policy] contracts should not ......
-
United States Aviation Underwriters v. Dassault
...parties' right to negotiate the terms of a contract, limited only by statutory prohibitions or public policy. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper, 732 P.2d 534, 538 (Wyo.1987) (and cites therein); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Ins. Dept., 672 P.2d 810, 815 (Wyo.1983); Mountain Fuel Supply C......
-
Hurst v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., S-17-0082.
...as a result of unfortunate and far too frequently occurring automobile collisions with uninsured motorists." Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper , 732 P.2d 534, 537 (Wyo. 1987) (italics in original). In sum, there is a recognizable difference behind the parties' intent when entering into t......
-
3.3.1 Intra-Policy Stacking
...1988); Green, 156 Ariz. 265, 751 P.2d 581; Kromrei v. AID Ins. Co., 716 P.2d 1321 (Idaho 1986); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper, 732 P.2d 534 (Wyo. 1987); Hoffman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 522 A.2d 1320 (Md. Ct. App. 1987); Lien v. Allstate Ins. Co., 626 F. Supp. 1132 (W.D. Wash. 1......