Holi v. Aig Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 26059.,26059. |
| Citation | 150 P.3d 845 |
| Parties | Leighton K. HOLI, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. AIG HAWAII INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Roe "Non-Profit" Corporations 1-10, and Roe Governmental Entities 1-10, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Arthur Y. Park, Laurent J. Remillard, Jr., and John C. McLaren (Park Park Yu & Remillard) and Earl T. Nakasato, on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee.
Lisa M. Ginoza and Becky T. Chestnut (McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon), on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee/cross-appellant.
WATANABE, PRESIDING J., LIM, and FUJISE, JJ.
This appeal and cross-appeal stem from a dispute between Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Leighton K. Holi (Holi) and Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant AIG Hawaii Insurance Company, Inc. (AIG) regarding whether Holi, who was seriously injured in an automobile accident on February 10, 2002, is entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under an automobile insurance policy (the Policy) issued by AIG to named insureds Rudy and Myrtle L. Castilan (the Castilans), in whose home Holi was residing at the time of the accident.
The Castilans are the parents of Holi's girlfriend, Melody M. Castilan (Melody). Melody and Holi are the biological parents of a minor son (Son). Although Holi had been living continuously in the Castilans' home since March 1998, he was not married to Melody at the time of the accident.
The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (the circuit court)1 held that under the terms of the Policy, Holi was not an "insured" entitled to UIM benefits because he was "not related by `blood, marriage or adoption' to the Castillians [sic] (i.e., the policy holder)." The circuit court also held that the Policy was not in conflict with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10C-103 (2005 Repl.) and therefore, was not voidable as being contrary to public policy. Finally, the circuit court denied AIG's request for attorneys' fees and costs expended to defend Holi's lawsuit. This appeal by Holi and cross-appeal by AIG followed. We affirm.
On February 10, 2002, while Holi was driving his 2001 Dodge Dakota to work, his vehicle was struck head on by a vehicle driven by Ador N. Laguisma (Laguisma). Holi suffered serious injuries and Laguisma died as a result of the collision. After settling with the Estate of Laguisma, Lila G. Laguisma, and First Fire and Casualty Insurance of Hawaii, Ltd. for the $20,000 bodily injury limits of Laguisma's automobile insurance policy, Holi2 sought UIM coverage under the Policy as a "family member" of the Castilans.
The Policy provided UIM coverage with limits of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident, but limited UIM coverage only to an "insured." Under the Policy, AIG agreed to pay compensatory damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury: 1. Sustained by an insured; and 2. Caused by an accident.
The Policy defined "insured" as follows:
1. You or any family member. 2. Any other person occupying your covered auto. 3. Any person for compensatory damages that person is entitled to recover because of bodily injury to which this coverage applies sustained by a person described in 1. or 2. above.
Additionally, the Policy defined "family member" as
a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, or such person while temporarily residing elsewhere. This includes a ward or foster child, and also includes a reciprocal beneficiary as defined in Act 383, [Hawaii Session Laws (Haw.Sess.L.)] 1997.
AIG denied Holi's claim for UIM benefits on grounds that he was not an "insured" under the terms of the Policy.
On November 8, 2002, Holi filed a complaint in the circuit court, seeking a declaratory judgment that AIG was obligated to provide UIM coverage for his injuries because he was related to the Castilans by blood through the birth of Son and was therefore, a family member of the Castilans. The complaint also requested general, special, punitive, and other damages for breach of contract and/or contractual warranties; violation of the Hawaii Insurance Code, HRS chapter 431; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to Holi under the Policy; negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Holi; and willful, wanton, and/or reckless acts and/or omissions by AIG.
On May 2, 2003, AIG filed a motion to dismiss Holi's complaint pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 7, 12(b)(6), and 12(c). AIG also requested attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to HRS §§ 607-14 (Supp.2005),3 607-14.5 (Supp.2005),4 and 431:10C-211 (2005 Repl.).5
In its motion to dismiss and memorandum in support of the motion, AIG argued, as to Holi's request for a declaratory judgment, that based on well-established definitions and case law, Holi's claim that he was related to the Castilans by blood "directly contradicts the historic, far-reaching and firmly rooted understanding that a relationship by blood, or consanguinity, arises from sharing of blood from a common ancestor." AIG also argued that the Hawaii cases cited by Holi were inapposite to the legal arguments he asserted in his complaint.
As to Holi's claims for damages for breach of contract and/or contractual warranties, AIG argued that because Holi was not an "insured" under the terms of the Policy with the Castilans, there could be no liability for these claims. As to Holi's claim for damages for AIG's alleged violation of HRS chapter 431, AIG pointed out that it is well-established under Hawai`i case law that no private cause of action is created by HRS chapter 431.
AIG also argued that Holi failed to state a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, failed to state a claim for negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failed to allege facts that justified an award of punitive damages.
With respect to its request for attorneys' fees and costs, AIG argued that Holi's claim to be "related by blood" to the Castilans was "manifestly and palpably without merit" and therefore, AIG was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Hawai`i case law and HRS §§ 607-14.5 and 431:10C-211. In the alternative, AIG maintained that because this case was "in the nature of assumpsit," a fact implicitly acknowledged by Holi in his claim for breach of contract, AIG was statutorily entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to HRS § 607-14.
On June 17, 2003, Holi filed a memorandum in opposition to AIG's motion to dismiss. In his memorandum, Holi did not argue that he was "related by blood" to the named insureds. Instead, he argued that the definition of "insured" in the Policy was more restrictive and thus, in conflict with the definition of "insured" in HRS § 431:10C-103 (2005 Repl.), Act 275, 1998 Haw. Sess. L. 922, 923, which states:
"Insured" means:
(1) The person identified by name as insured in a motor vehicle insurance policy complying with section 431:10C-301; and
(2) A person residing in the same household with a named insured, specifically:
(A) A spouse or reciprocal beneficiary or other relative of a named insured; and
(B) A minor in the custody of a named insured or of a relative residing in the same household with a named insured.
A person resides in the same household if the person usually makes the person's home in the same family unit, which may include reciprocal beneficiaries, even though the person temporarily lives elsewhere.
(Emphases added.) Holi argued that when the Hawai`i State Legislature (the legislature) amended the definition of "insured" in 1998, it clearly intended to broaden the definition to include "all persons residing in the same household with a named insured[.]" Holi also argued that the word "specifically" that precedes subparts (2)(A) and (2)(B) of the definition should not be viewed as a term of limitation or exclusion, but as setting forth examples of persons residing in the same household with a named insured who qualified as an "insured" under the statutory definition. Finally, Holi urged the circuit court to conclude that the Policy's definition of "family member" was in conflict with HRS § 431:10C-103 and therefore, void.
On June 25, 2003, the circuit court held a hearing on AIG's motion to dismiss.6 On August 4, 2003, the circuit court filed its order granting AIG's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but denying AIG's request for attorneys' fees and costs (the Order).
The Order concluded, in relevant part, as follows:
[T]he Court concludes that the scope of coverage for [UIM] benefits under [the Policy] does not extend to [Holi], as [Holi] is not related by "blood, marriage or adoption" to the Castillians [(sic)] (i.e. the policy holder). The Court concurs with [AIG's] interpretation that relationship by blood means relationship by descent from a common ancestor and that this is a commonly accepted definition. As [Holi] was not a descendant of an ancestor common with the Castillians [ (sic)], nor adopted by them, nor married to a daughter or other relative of them, [Holi] cannot qualify as an "insured" on the sole basis that he resided in the same household with the Castillians [ (sic)].
The Court also finds that the provisions of [the Policy] are not in conflict with [HRS] § 431:10C-103 and, therefore, are not voidable as being contrary to public policy. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court gave effect to the plain and ambiguous meaning of the statute which "specifically" required that the "person residing in the same household with a named insured" be either "a spouse or reciprocal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillan v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
...of the statute through an administrative rule, because the statutory term was ambiguous); Holi v. AIG Haw. Ins. Co., 113 Hawai`i 196, 205-06, 150 P.3d 845, 854-55 (App.2007) (according deference to the insurance commissioner's interpretation of the word "relative," appearing in HRS § 431:10......
-
Com, Inc. v. Dir. Taxation (In re Priceline)
...limits than intended." State v. Prevo, 44 Haw. 665, 668–69, 361 P.2d 1044, 1047 (1961) ; see also Holi v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., 113 Hawai‘i 196, 204, 150 P.3d 845, 853 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The doctrine of ejusdem generis‘is only applicable where legislative intent or language expressing that in......
-
Oliveira v. Commerce Ins. Co., 17-P-757
...you are related to by blood." Indeed, in the only case we have found to address this precise issue, Holi v. AIG Haw. Ins. Co., 113 Hawai'i 196, 197, 206, 150 P.3d 845 (Ct. App. 2007), the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling that UIM benefits were not available to a perso......
-
Fratinardo v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai‘i, CAAP–12–0000054.
...the doctrine restricts application of the general term to things similar to those enumerated. Holi v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc., 113 Hawai‘i 196, 204, 150 P.3d 845, 853 (App.2007). The doctrine construes all parts of a statute together and treats no word as superfluous, noting "[i]f the gen......