Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Siddons

• Decision Date: 20 March 1970
• Citation: 451 S.W.2d 831
• Parties: MERIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lola SIDDONS, Administratrix of the Estate of John A. Schweinhart, Deceased, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 831

451 S.W.2d 831

MERIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lola SIDDONS, Administratrix of the Estate of John A Schweinhart, Deceased, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1970.

As Modified April 23, 1970.

J. Walter Clements and G. William Clements, Louisville, for appellant.

D. H. Robinson, Louisville, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

In issue on this appeal is the extent of liability, under uninsured-motorist coverage, of an insurer which had issued two liability insurance policies to a motor-vehicle owner, one policy covering a passenger automobile and the other covering a pick-up truck. The judgment against the uninsured motorist was for $15,567 (which included $567 for funeral expenses). The circuit court held that the insurer was liable for the full amount of that judgment, under uninsured-motorist coverage, and was liable also for an additional $567 under direct 'medical payments' coverage. The insurer maintains that it should be liable only for $10,000 in all.

Ronald Siddons was the named insured in the policies here in question, which were issued by Meridian Mutual Insurance Company. His stepson, John Schweinhart, who was an additional insured, was walking across the street near his home when he was hit and killed by an uninsured-motorist. ¹ Judgment was recovered by John's administratrix against the uninsured-motorist. Recovery then was sought against Meridian, and judgment was entered as above indicated. Meridian has appealed.

In the policy covering Siddon's passenger automobile, uninsured-motorist coverage expressly was provided and a premium for that coverage was charged. In the other policy, covering the pick-up truck, there was no mention of uninsured-motorist coverage and no premium for that coverage was charged. (In its answer in this litigation Meridian admitted an allegation of the complaint that each of the policies contained uninsured motorist coverage. Meridian sought to amend its answer to plead that only one of the policies had such coverage, but the trial court would not permit the amendment to be made. Meridian complains on this appeal that the refusal of the court to permit the amendment was error. We are inclined to agree, as we see no reason why the correct facts should not have been allowed to be pleaded, but any such error could not be prejudicial here because as we view the case it is immaterial whether or not the uninsured-motorist coverage was expressly provided for in the policies.)

It is our opinion that each of the policies must be treated as providing uninsured-motorist coverage, because it appears that the applicable statute requires every policy so to do unless the coverage is rejected by the insured in writing. (There is no contention here that Siddons made any such rejection.) The significant part of the statute, KRS 304.682, is as follows:

'(1) No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in KRS 187.300(3) under provisions approved by the Commissioner of Insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; provided, that the named insured shall have the right to reject in writing such coverage; and provided further that, unless the named insured requests such coverage in writing, such coverage need not be provided in or supplemental to a renewal policy where the named insured had rejected the coverage in connection with a policy previously issued to him by the same insurer.'

The required minimum coverages (established by the reference to KRS 187.330(3)) are $10,000 and $20,000. ²

As will be noted, the statute prohibits delivery or issuance for delivery of a policy not containing the required coverage (unless rejected in writing). Under the long-established rule, provisions required by statute are treated as being a part of the policy the same as if expressly written therein. Tharp v. Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Ky., 405 S.W.2d 760; Maryland Casualty Company v. Baker, 304 Ky. 296, 200 S.W.2d 757; Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Ragen, 184 Ky. 359, 212 S.W. 123. The rule has been applied specifically to statutorily required uninsured-motorist coverage. See Page v. Insurance Company of North America, 256 Cal.App.2d 374, 64 Cal.Rptr. 89; Kirby v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 232 Cal.App.2d 9, 42 Cal.Rptr. 509; Stevens v. American Service Mutual Insurance Company, D.C.App., 234 A.2d 305.

Meridian argues, however, that even though each of the policies it issued to Siddons be treated as containing uninsured-motorist coverage, the maximum liability of Meridian should be $10,000 in all, because (1) of an 'other insurance' clause in its uninsured-motorist coverage agreement, and (2) the intent of the statute is to require only the minimum $10,000--$20,000 coverage for any one insured regardless of the number of policies issued to him.

The 'other insurance' clause in Meridian's uninsured-motorist coverage agreement is:

'* * * if the insured has other similar insurance available to him, and applicable to the accident, 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 for a greater proportion of any loss to which this Coverage applies than the limit of liability hereunder bears to the sum of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance.'

In substance the...