Holtz v. Mutual Service Casualty Company, 38417

• Decision Date: 02 November 1962
• Docket Number: No. 38417,38417
• Citation: 264 Minn. 121,117 N.W.2d 767
• Parties: Gordon H. HOLTZ, Appellant, v. MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 767

117 N.W.2d 767

264 Minn. 121

Gordon H. HOLTZ, Appellant, v. MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 38417.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 2, 1962.

Syllabus by the Court

A policy of liability insurance which provides that $50,000 is the limit of the insurer's liability for all damages, including damages for care arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident, does not permit a husband to recover from the insured's liability carrier that part of his wife's medical expenses which, added to her own damages for personal injury, exceeds the sum of $50,000.

Merlyn C. Green and Maun, Hazel, Green, Hayes, Simon & Aretz, St. Paul, for appellant.

Miley, Narveson & Williams and David W. Nord, St. Paul, for respondent.

OTIS, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court entered pursuant to an order denying his motion and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. The only issue is whether plaintiff's claim for the medical expenses incurred by his wife as a result of an automobile accident exceeds the limits of liability assumed by defendant under the terms of the insured driver's policy.

The parties have stipulated to the facts. Mrs. Holtz was awarded a verdict of $50,000, of which $1,600 represents property damage to her automobile, resulting from a collision with the insured, one Roger Sparrow. Plaintiff's verdict in the sum of $6,862.91 consists of $5,857.16 for his wife's medical and hospital expenses and $1,005.75 for his own injuries. Execution on his judgment against Sparrow having been returned unsatisfied, plaintiff proceeded directly against Sparrow's liability carrier, Mutual Service Casualty Company, respondent herein. Mutual Service has paid Mrs. Holtz $50,000 and has paid plaintiff the sum of $2,660.10, of which $1,005.75 was for his own personal injuries, $1,600, his wife's medical expenses, and $54.35, costs. The $1,600 figure represents the difference between Mrs. Holtz' verdict of $48,400 for personal injuries and the sum of $50,000 which was the limit of liability claimed by Mutual Service as to her. Defendant concedes that plaintiff has a valid claim for his wife's medical expenses provided her personal injuries and medical expenses do not exceed $50,000. The $1,600 for property damage is payable over and above the $50,000 personal injury limit. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that by the terms of the policy he is entitled to the amount of the verdict for his own injury in the sum of $1,005.75, which he has received, plus his wife's medical expenses in the sum of $5,857.16, less credit for $1,600 already paid by defendant, or a net claim of $4,257.16.

The provisions of the policy which govern our decision are these:

'COVERAGE A--Bodily Injury Liability

'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile.

'COVERAGE B--Property Damage Liability

'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use thereof, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile.

'Limits of Liability--Coverage A

'The limit of bodily injury liability sated in the declarations as applicable to 'each person' is the limit of the Company's liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by one person in any one accident; * * *.'

The limits of liability covering bodily injury are $50,000 for each person, and the limits of liability covering property damage is $10,000 for each accident. Plaintiff states the issue thus:

'* * * does the phrase 'sustained by one person' apply to and modify the word 'damages' or the phrase 'bodily injury'? If the former, appellant is entitled to prevail.'

In other words, it is plaintiff's contention that the policy should be read in this manner:

'$50,000 is the limit of liability for all Damages sustained by one person in any one accident.'

Plaintiff argues that defendant is liable to him and to his wife up to $50,000 apiece for the Damages each sustained in the collision, and that his wife's medical expenses constitute damages for which he is entitled to reimbursement.

Mutual Service would have us read the applicable provision thus:

'$50,000 is the limit of liability for All damages, including medical expenses, arising out of Bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident.'

This construction would limit liability for all damages, direct and consequential, to $50,000 per injured person. We are of the opinion that both logic and precedent compel us to adopt the latter view. All of the cases called to our attention which construe this particular policy so hold. Of the two decisions cited by plaintiff as controlling, one was expressly overruled after the plaintiff's appellate brief was filed. Guarisco v. Swindle (La.App.), 132 So.2d 643. The other decision is Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Camp, 109 Ind.App. 389, 32 N.E.2d 112 (1941). The question in the Indiana case was whether the father of a minor child could recover for loss of services and medical expenses arising out of an accident in which the child was injured as an occupant of the insured automobile. The policy required the insurer to pay Damages on account of bodily injury inflicted upon any person other than an...