Pecker v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 24 August 1976 |
Citation | 370 A.2d 1006,171 Conn. 443 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Richard C. PECKER et al. v. The AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY. |
Michael D. O'Connell, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Robert C. Danaher, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
J. Brooks Johnson, Jr., Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
This appeal is taken by the plaintiffs, Richard C. Pecker and Vernon C. Pecker, from a judgment for the defendant, the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, hereinafter referred to as Aetna. Judgment was entered after Aetna had demurred to the plaintiffs' complaint and its motion for judgment on the demurrer was sustained by the trial court. As '(a) demurrer admits all facts well-pleaded'; Covino v. Pfeffer, 160 Conn. 212, 214, 276 A.2d 895, 896; see State v. LaSelva, 163 Conn. 229, 230-31, 303 A.2d 721; we treat as admitted the following allegations which appear in the plaintiffs' complaint: On April 30, 1972, the plaintiff Vernon C. Pecker was seriously injured when the motorcycle he was operating was struck by an uninsured motorist. The motorcycle was registered in the name of Lillian D. Pecker, Vernon's mother, and it was insured under a policy issued to her by the Central National Insurance Company of Omaha. At the time of the accident, Vernon was an insured under the family protection coverage provisions of an automobile insurance policy issued to his father the plaintiff Richard C. Pecker, by Aetna. Both the Central National and the Aetna policy included a provision for uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $20,000. The plaintiffs submitted claims to Central National under its uninsured motorist provision and, after the claims were compromised because of questions as to coverage, they received $18,000 in settlement. As their damages exceeded that sum, the plaintiffs also submitted claims to Aetna under its uninsured motorist provision, but Aetna denied coverage.
The family protection coverage of the Aetna policy included the following relevant provisions:
When Aetna denied coverage, the plaintiffs brought this action for a declaratory judgment that Aetna is liable within the $20,000 monetary limit of its policy to the extent that their damages exceeded $18,000 and that Aetna must submit to arbitration of the claims. In its demurrer to the plaintiffs' complaint, Aetna claimed that under the 'other insurance' clause in its policy the plaintiffs were not entitled to payment from Aetna because primary uninsured motorist coverage up to the statutory minimum of $20,000 was provided by the Central National policy. In ruling on the demurrer, the trial court found that all that is required by state statutes and regulations is that a minimum of $20,000 of uninsured motorist coverage be available to an insured; and it found that, although the plaintiffs had settled their claims for $18,000, the amount 'available' from the primary insurer was $20,000. Therefore, the court concluded that the 'other insurance' clause in the Aetna policy was valid and the plaintiffs were thereby foreclosed from recovering any payment from Aetna. The court sustained the demurrer and when the plaintiffs failed to plead further, judgment on the demurrer was rendered for Aetna. The plaintiffs appealed to this court and the issues raised by their several assignments of error are considered in the opinion.
The courts of many jurisdictions have considered whether 'other insurance' clauses included in uninsured motorist coverage provisions are valid. See annot., 28 A.L.R.3d 551. Following an examination of the decisions of the courts of many jurisdictions, the court in Simpson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 318 F.Supp. 1152, 1155-56 (S.D.Ind.), adopted the so-called 'majority view' that 'other insurance' clauses included in uninsured motorist coverage provisions are invalid. The court gave the following reasons for its decision: Id., p. 1156. Many other courts which have held that 'OTHER INSURANCE' CLAUSES ARE INVALID HAVE also made their decision on the basis, at least in part, of the applicable statutes of their respective jurisdictions; see Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 185 So.2d 689 (Fla.); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Barnard, 115 Ga.App. 857, 156 S.E.2d 148; Moore v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. Group, 270 N.C. 532, 155 S.E.2d 128; Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co. v. Blumling, 429 Pa. 389, 241 A.2d 112; Vernon v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co., 244 S.C. 152, 135 S.E.2d 841; Bryant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 205 Va. 897, 140 S.E.2d 817; and, of the courts which have held such 'other insurance' clauses to be valid, at least one court found itself required to do so by the express provision of statutes of the jurisdiction. See Kriby v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 232 Cal.App.2d 9, 13, 42 Cal.Rptr. 509.
The applicable statutes and regulations of this state are as follows: Under § 38-175a of the General Statutes, the insurance commissioner 'shall adopt regulations with respect to minimum provisions to be included in automobile liability insurance policies,' and those regulations 'shall relate to the insuring agreements, exclusions, conditions and other terms applicable to . . . uninsured motorists coverages under such policies' and 'shall make mandatory the inclusion of . . . uninsured motorists coverages.' Every automobile liability policy is to provide uninsured motorist coverage in accordance with those regulations, with limits for bodily injury or death not less than $20,000. General Statutes § 38-175c. 1 Such policies are deemed to provide coverage in accordance with the regulations. General Statutes § 38-175d. 2
The regulations subsequently adopted by the insurance commissioner to implement the statutory provisions concerning uninsured motorist coverage have the force of statute. Citerella v. United Illuminating Co., 158 Conn. 600, 608, 266 A.2d 382; Hyde v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 236, 240, 188 A. 266. The relevant regulations are as follows: Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 38-175a-3. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, 13067
... ... AFSCME, 195 Conn. 266, 269, 487 A.2d 553 (1985); Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 189 Conn. 16, 20, 453 A.2d 1158 (1983); Malecki ... Co., 171 Conn. 463, 472-73, 370 A.2d 1011 (1976); Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 448-49, 370 A.2d 1006 ... ...
-
Kent v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co.
...Ins. Co. v. Gode, supra; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, supra, 174 Conn. at 332-33, 387 A.2d 539; see also Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 448-53, 370 A.2d 1006 (1976). Indeed, we have found stacking to be available when the insured has paid separate premium motorist covera......
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode
...329, 335, 387 A.2d 539 (1978); Roy v. Centennial Ins. Co., 171 Conn. 463, 475, 370 A.2d 1011 (1976); Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 451-52, 370 A.2d 1006 (1976). See also Yacobacci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Conn.Sup. 229, 372 A.2d 987 (1976). " 'This is particularly tr......
-
Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., YALE-NEW
...coverage and not the underinsured motorist tortfeasor. 23 Indeed, we so interpreted this regulation in Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 449-52, 370 A.2d 1006 (1976). In Pecker, we stated, in discussing whether "other insurance" clauses were valid under another provision......
-
The Changing Landscape of Uninsured/underinsured Mortorist Insurance Law in Connecticut
...218 Conn. at 663,511 A.2d at 13. Nationwide Insurance Company v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386,388, n.2,446 A.2d 1059, 1060 (1982). 14. 171 Conn. 443, 370 A.2d 1006 15. The "other insurance" clause at issue in Pecker purported to limit Aetna's liability in an uninsured motorist claim to the proportio......