Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire and Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 15070,15070 |
| Citation | 107 Idaho 777,692 P.2d 1209 |
| Parties | Donald L. DULLENTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Charles W. Hosack, Smith, McCabe & Hosack, Coeur d'Alene, for defendant-respondent.
ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
This opinion supersedes our prior opinion issued November 29, 1984, which is hereby withdrawn.
This case focuses upon the "stacking" of uninsured motorist coverages under separate automobile insurance policies. Donald Dullenty, the insured claimant, has appealed a summary judgment granted to one of the insurance companies. The sole issue is whether Dullenty, who has paid the premiums for uninsured motorist coverage in three different policies, can combine those policies to obtain the fullest possible recovery for injuries he suffered in a traffic accident involving an uninsured motorist.
The liability portion of the policy under which he brings this suit was written for an automobile other than the one he occupied during the accident. Consequently, the district court held the uninsured motorist coverage under this policy inapplicable to the instant claim. The question presented by this ruling is virtually identical to one we have decided in Hammon v. Farmers Insurance Co., 107 Idaho 770, 692 P.2d 1202 (Ct.App. 1984). For reasons set forth below and in Hammon, we reverse the summary judgment in this case.
The facts are these. Dullenty sustained his injuries in a head-on collision while driving a 1974 Chevrolet Blazer. The driver of the other automobile, as we have noted, was uninsured. At the time of the accident Dullenty owned two vehicles in addition to the Blazer. All of them were insured. The Blazer and a 1979 Subaru were insured by a carrier not a party to this action. A 1966 International truck was insured by Rocky Mountain Fire and Casualty Company, the defendant here. All of the policies contained uninsured motorist coverage. The maximum recovery available under each policy is unclear from the record, but in no instance does it appear to be less than $10,000.
Dullenty claims to have incurred some $15,000 to $18,000 in medical expenses. Additional medical treatment apparently will be required because an injury in his left forearm is permanent and the pain is recurring. Dullenty, a self-employed individual, also has suffered lost earnings from his work. For the sake of discussion we assume that his aggregate claim ultimately may be found to exceed the maximum recovery available under any one policy.
The Rocky Mountain policy is similar to the policy reviewed in Hammon. The pertinent portion provides as follows:
Damages for Injuries or Death Caused by Uninsured Automobile: To pay all damages which the insured shall be legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by accident, and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; provided, that
* * *
* * *
(2) insurance under the automobile bodily injury liability coverage of this policy * * *
was in effect at the time of and applicable to such accident....
* * *
EXCLUSIONS
This supplement does not apply:
* * *
* * *
(c) To any other vehicle or automobile owned by or furnished for regular or frequent use to the named insured and, while resident of the same household, his spouse and relatives of either.... [Emphasis added.]
As we noted in Hammon, uninsured motorist coverage--unlike liability coverage--focuses upon people rather than vehicles. Under I.C. § 41-2502, uninsured motorist protection extends to the insured whenever he is injured and would be entitled to recover as the result of the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle. The insured need not have occupied any particular vehicle when he sustained his injury; indeed, he could have been a pedestrian. Therefore, the Rocky Mountain policy is repugnant to I.C. § 41-2502, insofar as it purports to limit uninsured motorist coverage to those situations where the liability coverage also would apply, and insofar as it purports to exclude uninsured motorist coverage with respect to injuries sustained while occupying certain "other" vehicles. We hold that the Rocky Mountain policy, when construed to comply with I.C. § 41-2502, represents a source of potential recovery on Dullenty's claim.
Rocky Mountain argues that such broad uninsured motorist coverage violates the constitutional guaranty of equal protection by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire and Cas. Co.
...a vehicle owned by him and not described in the policy. The decision of the Court of Appeals, Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire and Casualty Company, 107 Idaho 777, 692 P.2d 1209 (1984), focused on its view that the Rocky Mountain policy was "repugnant" to public policy as expressed in our st......
-
Meckert v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...this Court, i.e., Hammon v. Farmers Insurance Group, 107 Idaho 770, 692 P.2d 1202 (App.1984), and Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co., 107 Idaho 777, 692 P.2d 1209 (App.1984). The Court of Appeals held in both cases that "other owned vehicle" exclusions to uninsured motorist cove......
-
Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...decisions in Hammon v. Farmers Insurance Group, 107 Idaho 770, 692 P.2d 1202 (Ct.App.1984), and Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co., 107 Idaho 777, 692 P.2d 1209 (Ct.App.1984). In those cases, the Court of Appeals held that the anti-stacking provisions such as those found in the Hans......