Crossley v. Pacific Emp. Ins. Co., 40791
| Decision Date | 16 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 40791,40791 |
| Citation | 198 Neb. 26,251 N.W.2d 383 |
| Parties | James CROSSLEY, Appellee, v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A vehicle which has liability insurance coverage effective and applicable to it at the time of an accident in limits not less than the amounts required by section 60-509, R.R.S.1943, is not an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of section 60-509.01, R.R.S.1943.
2. In an action for personal injuries or death resulting from an automobile accident, the law of the place where the accident occurred will ordinarily be applied, and that law governs not only the amount of recovery but also the right to recover.
3. Uninsured motorist coverage is dependent upon legal liability on the part of the uninsured motorist to the insured for the personal injuries sustained.
Robert L. Matthews, Jr., William J. Brennan, Jr. of Fitzgerald, Brown, Leahy, Strom, Schorr & Barmettler, Omaha, for appellant.
James R. Coe of Matthews, Kelley, Cannon & Carpenter, P. C., Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON and CLINTON, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, for personal injuries against the insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of the insurance policy on an automobile owned by plaintiff. The personal injuries resulted from an automobile accident which occurred in the State of Colorado, while plaintiff was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and driven by his stepson. The driver of the other vehicle was a resident of Colorado. The District Court held as a matter of law that the automobile driven by the Colorado resident was an uninsured motor vehicle, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $6,632.40, and the court assessed attorney's fees of $1,500. The defendant insurance company has appealed.
On April 12, 1974, plaintiff was a passenger in a car owned and driven by his stepson. The automobile was entering an entrance ramp to Interstate 80 near Denver, Colorado, when it stopped because of traffic ahead of it. While the automobile was stopped it was struck from behind by an automobile driven by a Colorado resident and the plaintiff hit his knee on the dashboard. Plaintiff was taken to Denver General Hospital, X-rayed, and released with instructions to see his doctor when he got home. Plaintiff visited an Omaha orthopedic surgeon about 3 weeks later on May 8, 1974, and on two occasions thereafter, the final visit being on November 19, 1974. The doctor testified that at that time the injury had healed but the ligament in the knee was not as solid as before the injury, predisposing the plaintiff to future injury. Other than that, there was no permanent impairment. The plaintiff lost a few days from work, and the total medical costs were $118.26.
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff had an automobile insurance policy with the defendant, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, providing $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage to the insured. Under the terms of the policy the defendant was obligated "To pay all sums which the Insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury, * * * sustained by the Insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured motor vehicle; * * *." The driver of the Colorado automobile had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers Insurance Group providing liability insurance of $15,000 each person, $30,000 each occurrence, for bodily injury; and $10,000 each occurrence property damage coverage.
At the time of the accident, Colorado had enacted a no-fault Auto Accident Reparations Act. Under that act no person is permitted to recover against an owner or driver with the required insurance except where there was (1) death; (2) dismemberment; (3) permanent disability; (4) permanent disfigurement; (5) reasonable need for medical services having a reasonable value in excess of $500; or (6) loss of earnings beyond a 52-week period not compensated by an insurance policy complying with the terms of the act. Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann., § 10-4-701 et seq.
Plaintiff made demand for payment on the insurance carrier for the Colorado automobile. That company paid the property damage on the vehicle owned by plaintiff's stepson, but refused to pay any damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff because of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act. Plaintiff then brought this action against the insurance carrier on his own automobile under the uninsured motorist coverage of the policy. The District Court found as a matter of law that the Colorado automobile was an "uninsured" motor vehicle, and a jury verdict for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Continental Western Ins. Co.
...the majority view. Radlein v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 117 Wis.2d 605, 345 N.W.2d 874 (1984); Crossley v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 198 Neb. 26, 251 N.W.2d 383 (1977). Neither of these two cases are persuasive authority for the position the defendant would have this Court adop......
-
Erie v. Heffernan
...or the state in which the accident occurred, for purposes of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage); Crossley v. Pacific Employees Ins. Co., 198 Neb. 26, 251 N.W.2d 383, 386 (1977) (holding that in an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits, the law of the state where the accident ......
-
Gutierrez v. Collins
...292 Ala. 582, 298 So.2d 20 (1974); Ellington v. Tolar Const. Co., 142 Ga.App. 218, 235 S.E.2d 729 (1977); Crossley v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 198 Neb. 26, 251 N.W.2d 383 (1977); Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., 25 Ohio St.2d 193, 267 N.E.2d 405, Cert. denied, 403 U.S. 931, 91 S.Ct. ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gillette
...in California; insured could not recover under policy because could not recover damages under Hawaii law); Crossley v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 251 N.W.2d 383, 384-85 (Neb. 1977) (insured resident of Nebraska, with uninsured motorist coverage, could not recover under uninsured motorist c......
-
Nebraska Choice of Law: a Synthesis
...analysis involving standards of conduct and one involving the allocation of losses"). 16. See Crossley v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co., 198 Neb. 26, 251 N.W.2d 383 (1977) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) CONFLICT OF LAWS § 146 (1971)). See also EUGENE SCOLES, PETER HAY, PATRICK BORCHERS, & SYMEON SY......