Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1989
• Docket Number: Nos. 13602,13603,s. 13602
• Citation: Nicolletta v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 560 A.2d 964, 211 Conn. 640 (Conn. 1989)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Ray NICOLLETTA, Administrator (ESTATE OF Kristi NICOLLETTA), et al. v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY. Steven J. PUTNAM v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 964

560 A.2d 964

211 Conn. 640

Ray NICOLLETTA, Administrator (ESTATE OF Kristi NICOLLETTA), et al. v.NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Steven J. PUTNAM v.NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Nos. 13602, 13603.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 9, 1989.

Decided June 27, 1989.

Carl E. Cella, North Haven, for appellant(defendant in both cases).

John F. Wynne, Jr., New Haven, for appellees(plaintiffs in the first case).

Susan M. Cormier, with whom was Alexandra Davis, Hartford, for appellee(plaintiff in the second case).

PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, GLASS, COVELLO and HULL, JJ.

COVELLO, Justice.

The dispositive issue in these consolidated cases is whether General Statutes § 38-175c(a)(2) furnishes a statutory basis for imposing a limitation on the aggregation (stacking) of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in an automobile liability insurance policy.We agree with the trial court's conclusion that it does not and, therefore, find no error.

The facts in both cases are not in dispute and were presented to the trial court as stipulations by the parties.

The Nicolletta action: On November 16, 1986, Kristi Nicolletta was killed while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Charlene Ives.The Ives vehicle had liability insurance coverage of $20,000 which was paid to Nicolletta's estate.

At the time of the accident there was a Nationwide Insurance Company automobile liability insurance policy in force insuring two vehicles owned by Carol Nicoletta, Kristi Nicoletta's mother.Kristi Nicolletta qualified for coverage under this policy.Each of the insured vehicles was separately described in the policy.Further, each vehicle's insurance coverage was individually listed and a separate premium was shown for the type of coverage on each vehicle.

Each vehicle had uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $50,000 per person.The uninsured motorist coverage, however, was subject to a limitation as to the amount of money that would be paid by reason of the coverage on a second vehicle.This limitation was contained in a separate policy endorsement that provided: "[T]he insuring of more than one person or vehicle under this policy does not increase our Uninsured Motorists payment limits; in no event will any insured be entitled to more than the highest limit applicable to any one motor vehicle under this or any other policy issued by us.This condition, as it applies to the insuring of more than one vehicle under this policy or the insuring of vehicles under other policies issued by us, does not apply to the extent the limits of liability do not exceed the limits equal to the minimum limits required by Section 38-175[c]¹ of the Connecticut Insurance Law."(Emphasis added.)

Nicolletta's estate filed an underinsured ² motorist claim against the defendant.The defendant paid the Nicolletta estate $70,000 (less credits which are not in dispute) which it contended represented the aggregate "stacked" uninsured motorist coverage on the two vehicles insured under the Nationwide policy.The defendant conceded that there was $50,000 due by reason of the uninsured motorist coverage on one of the two Nicolletta vehicles, but maintained that the language of the endorsement limited the amount it was required to pay by reason of the uninsured motorist coverage on the second vehicle to the statutory minimum of $20,000 contained in § 38-175c by reason of its reference to General Statutes § 14-112.Nicolletta's estate, on the other hand, contended that "stacking" entitled it to the full $50,000 in uninsured motorist coverage on each of the two insured vehicles, for a total of $100,000.

The parties submitted their dispute to arbitration, an option available under the policy.³The arbitrators ruled in favor of Nicolletta's estate and concluded that the aggregate uninsured motorist coverage under the policy was $100,000.The defendant thereafter filed the present action in the Superior Court seeking to vacate the arbitration award.SeeGeneral Statutes § 52-418.Nicolletta's estate filed a counter application to confirm the award.SeeGeneral Statutes § 52-417.The trial court affirmed the award.

The Putnam action: On April 8, 1986, Steven J. Putnam was injured while a passenger in an uninsured automobile.His damages were $200,000.At the time of the accident there was a Nationwide automobile liability insurance policy in force insuring two vehicles owned by Wallace Putnam and Jean Putnam, Steven Putnam's parents.Steven Putnam qualified for coverage under this policy as a resident relative of the Putnams.Each of the insured vehicles was separately described in the policy.Each vehicle's insurance coverage was individually listed and a separate premium was shown for the type of coverage on each vehicle.

Each vehicle had uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $100,000 per person.The uninsured motorist coverage, however, was subject to the same limitation as to the amount of payment that would be due because of coverage on the second vehicle by reason of the identical policy endorsement which had existed in the Nicolletta action.

Steven Putnam filed an uninsured motorist claim against the defendant.The defendant paid him $120,000 which it contended represented the aggregate "stacked" uninsured motorist coverage on the two vehicles insured under its policy.Again, the defendant conceded that there was $100,000 due by reason of the uninsured motorist coverage on one of the two Putnam vehicles, but maintained that the language of the endorsement limited the amount it was required to pay by reason of the uninsured motorist coverage on the second vehicle to the statutory minimum of $20,000 contained in § 38-175c by reason of its reference to § 14-112.Steven Putnam advanced the same argument as had Nicolletta and contended that "stacking" entitled him to the full $100,000 in uninsured motorist coverage per vehicle, for a total of $200,000.

The parties submitted their dispute to arbitration in accordance with the policy.This time, the arbitrators ruled that the endorsement did limit the amount due and concluded that the aggregate uninsured motorist coverage under the policy was $120,000.The plaintiffSteven Putnam thereafter filed an application in the Superior Court seeking to vacate the arbitration award.See§ 52-418.The trial court vacated the award.

"This court has, on a number of occasions, considered the 'stacking' of uninsured and underinsured automobile insurance coverage for two passenger cars.Three principles of law emerge from our cases.First, we have noted that the issue of aggregation of coverage for multiple vehicles can arise with regard either to 'interpolicy stacking' under separate and distinct insurance policies, or to single policy, 'intra-policy stacking.'Regardless of this difference in form, we have repeatedly held that General Statutes § 38-175c permits an injured claimant to 'stack' coverages....Second, in the context of cases involving 'intra-policy stacking,' such as the one presently before us, we have held that such stacking is particularly appropriate when, as here, ' "each of the insured vehicles is separately described, the coverage granted under the policy is separately listed for each vehicle and a separate premium is charged for the coverage afforded to each of the described vehicles." 'Safeco Ins. Co. [Companies] v. Vetre, [174 Conn. 329, 334, 387 A.2d 539(1978) ];Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, [187 Conn. 386, 395, 446 A.2d 1059(1982) ].Third, relying on regulations enacted pursuant to General Statutes §§ 38-175aand38-175c, we have concluded that an insurer may not, by contract, reduce its liability for such uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage except as § 38-175a-6 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies expressly authorizes....That regulation permits an insurer to limit its liability to the extent that damages have been paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury, have been paid or are payable under any workers' compensation or disability benefits law, have been paid under the policy in...