Raitt v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 6231,6231 |
| Citation | 285 A.2d 799,111 N.H. 397 |
| Parties | Ronald A. RAITT v. NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern, Portsmouth (Duncan A. McEachern, Portsmouth, orally), for plaintiff.
Calderwood & Ouellette and Stanley J. Mullaney, Dover (Mullaney, orally), for defendant.
On March 3, 1969 the plaintiff suffered personal injuries while a passenger in an uninsured motor vehicle which was in collision with an insured vehicle in Dinwiddie, Virginia. The plaintiff was the named insured in a policy of insurance issued to him by the defendant on May 1, 1968, which was effective on the date of the accident, and which provided uninsured motorist coverage as required by RSA 268:15-a as inserted by Laws 1967, ch. 284. With the consent of his insurer obtained pursuant to certain provisions of the policy, the plaintiff negotiated a settlement with the Virginia motorist's insurer in the sum of $15,000, which was the limit of coverage provided by the latter's policy. Relying upon provisions of its policy issued to the plaintiff, the defendant thereafter denied coverage upon the ground that the maximum limit of the plaintiff's policy is $10,000 and that the amount recovered from the insured motorist exceeded this amount, so that the plaintiff is 'not entitled to receive anything from the defendant'.
The plaintiff brings this petition for declaratory judgment to determine the rights of the parties. All questions of law presented were reserved and transferred by the Presiding Justice, Perkins, J.
By its policy issued to the plaintiff and in particular by an endorsement styled 'Family Protection Coverage', the defendant undertook to 'pay all sums which the insured . . . shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury . . ..' Paragraph 6 of the 'Conditions' of the endorsement provided that the limit of liability for such damages should be the limit stated in the policy, which was $10,000 for injury of any one person, as required by the statute in effect at that time. RSA 268:1(VII). Paragraph 6 of the 'Conditions' of the endorsement further provided in pertinent part, under the head of 'Limits of Liability'
'(b) any amount payable under the terms of this endorsement because of bodily injury sustained in an accident by a person who is an insured under this coverage shall be reduced by (1) all sums paid on account of such bodily injury by or on behalf of (i) the owner or operator of the uninsured automobile and (ii) any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for such bodily injury including all sums paid under the Bodily Injury Liability Coverage of the policy . . .'
Paragraph 9 of the 'Conditions' also provided in part as follows:
The last quoted provisions are substantially in the form of similar provisions found in the 1966 standard form for uninsured motorist endorsements promulgated by the national underwriters' bureau. See Widiss, Uninsured Motorist Coverage Appendix A, 1, at 293, 297 (1969).
The plaintiff maintains that under a proper interpretation of the policy the defendant's undertaking to provide him with coverage up to $10,000 should not be excused or discharged by the payment received from the joint tort-feasor's insurer, and that if it should be interpreted to produce this result, the policy provisions in question are void, because repugnant to the financial responsibility law. RSA ch. 268.
In 1957, the financial responsibility law of this state first required insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage in a minimum amount of $10,000 for any one person. See Widiss, supra s. 1.11; Carrignan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 108 N.H. 131, 132, 229 A.2d 179, 180 (1967). This requirement remained in effect at the time of this accident, and over the ten year period was upheld and applied by decisions of this court. Kirouac v. Healey, 104 N.H. 157, 181 A.2d 634 (1962); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Howe, 106 N.H. 422, 213 A.2d 420 (1965); Carrignan v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra; McCaffery v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 108 N.H. 373, 236 A.2d 490 (1967).
By act adopted in 1967, the provisions of RSA 268:15 relating to uninsured motorist coverage were placed in a new section, section 15-a(I); and other subsections of § 15-a provided for extension of such coverage to vehicles the insurer of which was insolvent. Laws 1967, 284:2 (268:15-a(II)) effective August 26, 1967. See McCaffery v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 108 N.H. 373, 236 A.2d 490, supra.
The 1967 statute was entitled 'An Act Extending Uninsured or Hit-and-Run Motor Vehicle Coverage to Include Motor Vehicles Insured by a Company Which is Insolvent . . ..' According to remarks by the chairman of the insurance committee on the third reading of the bill in the Senate, the bill met with no opposition before committee, and 'extends . . . coverage to include vehicles insured by an insolvent company.' Senate Journal, 1967 session, at 795.
In fact the bill contained other provisions which appear in subsection IV of section 15-a (Laws 1967, 284:2), relied upon by the defendant herein, which read in part as follows:
Thus essentially the same language employed by condition 9(a) of the defendant's policy previously quoted, became a part of the financial responsibility law under the banner of an extension of uninsured motorist coverage benefits.
We are now called upon to determine whether these statutory and policy provisions have the effect contended for by the defendant.
Professor Widiss' treatise indicates that the provisions of § 15-a(IV) as inserted by the 1967 amendment, stem from 'uniform statutory provisions', where they appeared under the head of 'Subrogation Clauses' Widiss, supra. Appendix B, 3, at 313. Referring to the trust agreement provisions, he points out that they purport to control the allocation of the proceeds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.
...106 R.I. 311, 259 A.2d 408 (1969); United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Doktor, 86 Nev. 917, 478 P.2d 583 (1970); Raitt v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 111 N.H. 397, 285 A.2d 799 (1971). 8 Nor is any light shed upon the matter by Widiss, A Guide to Uninsured Motorist Coverage (1969), a treatise he......
-
Employers Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd. v. Jackson
...Co. of N.Y., 259 A.2d 408 (R.I.); United Services Automobile Association v. Dokter, 86 Nev. 917, 478 P.2d 583; Raitt v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 285 A.2d 799 (N.H.). We do not feel that Safeco, etc. v. Jones, supra, should be overruled and we find no merit in appellant's first Appella......
-
Kral v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
...302 Minn. 310, 225 N.W.2d 230 (1974); Craig v. Iowa Kemper Mut. Ins. Co., 565 S.W.2d 716 (Mo.App.1978); Raitt v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 111 N.H. 397, 285 A.2d 799 (1971); Walls v. City of Pittsburgh, 292 Pa.Super. 18, 436 A.2d 698 (1981); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Barnette, ......
-
Davenport v. Aid Ins. Co. (Mutual)
...310, 225 N.W.2d 230 (1974); Craig v. Iowa Kemper Mutual Insurance Co., 565 S.W.2d 716 (Mo.App.1978); Raitt v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Co., 111 N.H. 397, 285 A.2d 799 (1971); Walls v. City of Pittsburgh, 292 Pa.Super. 18, 436 A.2d 698 (Pa.Super.1981); Hawaiian Insurance and Guaranty......