Maryland Cas. Co. v. Howe
| Decision Date | 05 October 1965 |
| Citation | 213 A.2d 420,106 N.H. 422 |
| Parties | MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. Ethelyn G. HOWE et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green and Richard A. Morse, Manchester, for plaintiff Maryland Casualty Co.
Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch and Jarlath M. Slattery, Manchester, for plaintiff State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Shulins & Duncan, Richard C. Duncan, Newport, for defendants.
Petition for declaratory judgment (RSA 491:22) to determine the maximum limits of liability under the uninsured motorists endorsements of two substantially identical liability policies issued by the plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company to the defendant Ethelyn G. Howe and by the plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to the defendant Ronald Howe. Ronald, the named insured in his own policy, is the son of Ethelyn and he was injured while a passenger in an uninsured motor vehicle at a time when he was a member of the household of Ethelyn and an insured under her policy. Each policy provided for $10,000 coverage under the uninsured motorists endorsements. The defendants contend they are entitled to a total coverage of $20,000 which is $10,000 under the uninsured motorists endorsement contained in each policy. The plaintiffs contend the total coverage under the uninsured motorists endorsements is $10,000, which is $5,000 under each policy. This specific question was reserved and transferred without ruling by Grant, J. The facts are not disputed.
The policies contained the following conditions under the heading 'Other Insurance':
'With respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile not owned by a named insured under this endorsement, the insurance hereunder shall apply only as excess insurance over any other similar insurance available to such occupant, and this insurance shall then apply only in the amount by which the applicable limit of liability of this endorsement exceeds the sum of the applicable limits of liability of all such other insurance.
'With respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying or through being struck by an uninsured automobile, if such insured is a named insured under other similar insurance available to him, then the damages shall be deemed not to exceed the higher of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance, and the company shall not be liable under this endorsement for a greater proportion of the applicable limit of liability of this endorsement than such limit bears to the sum of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance.
'Subject to the foregoing paragraphs, if the insured has other similar insurance available to him against a loss covered by this endorsement, the company shall not be liable under this endorsement for a greater proportion of such loss than the applicable limit of liability hereunder bears to the total applicable limits of liability of all valid and collectible insurance against such loss.'
The financial responsibility law of this state requires a minimum coverage of $10,000 for bodily injuries to a single claimant and $20,000 for any one accident resulting in bodily injuries to more than one person. RSA 268:1 VII (supp); Laws 1955, 76:1. Since 1957 uninsured motorist insurance has been required with the same minimum limits. RSA 268:15 (supp); RSA 412:2-a (supp); Laws 1957, 305:8, 10. The purpose of uninsured motorist insurance is to remedy the obvious deficiency in financial responsibility legislation which did not protect those injured by financially irresponsible motorists and the hit-and-run operator. Kirouac v. Healey, 104 N.H. 157, 181 A.2d 634; Hein v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 106 N.H. ----, 213 A.2d 197; Kelly, Kirouac v. Healey: Comments on the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement in New Hampshire, 7 N.H.B.J. 92 (1965). This insurance is '* * * designed to close a gap in the protection afforded the public under existing Financial Responsibility Acts.' Kirouac v. Healey, supra, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips
...v. Millers' Mutual Ins. Ass'n of Illinois, 49 Ill.2d 234, 274 N.E.2d 1 (Sup.Ct.1971).New Hampshire--Maryland Casualty Company v. Howe, 106 N.H. 422, 213 A.2d 420 (Sup.Ct.1965).Utah--Lyon v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 25 Utah 2d 311, 480 P.2d 739 (Sup.Ct.1971).Wisconsin--Nelson......
-
McClure v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co.
...Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 245 Ark. 230, 431 S.W.2d 742; Morelock v. Millers' Mut. Ins. Assn., 49 Ill.2d 234, 274 N.E.2d 1; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Howe, 106 N.H. 422, 213 A.2d 420; Nelson v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 63 Wis.2d 558, 217 N.W.2d 670. We think that under a statute like our § 516A.1, Sta......
-
Sloviaczek v. Estate of Puckett
...Ark. 230, 431 S.W.2d 742 (1968); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bafus, 77 Wash.2d 720, 466 P.2d 159 (1970); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Howe, 106 N.H. 422, 213 A.2d 420 (N.H.1965); Tindall v. Farmers Auto Manag. Corp., 83 Ill.App.2d 165, 226 N.E.2d 397 (1967); Burcham v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, ......
-
Putnam v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.
...Ins. Co., 232 Cal.App.2d 9, 42 Cal.Rptr. 509; Burcham v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 255 Iowa 69, 121 N.W.2d 500; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Howe, 106 N.H. 422, 213 A.2d 420; McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnity Corp., 16 A.D.2d 35, 224 N.Y.S.2d 909; see also Denny, 'Uninsured Motorist Cov......