Rhault v. Tsagarakos
Decision Date | 18 June 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6510. |
Citation | 361 F. Supp. 202 |
Parties | Elizabeth RHAULT, Executrix of the Estate of Eugene J. Rhault v. Anthony N. TSAGARAKOS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
McNamara, Fitzpatrick, Sylvester, Farrell & Maley, Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff.
Pierson, Affolter & Amidon, Burlington, Vt., for Cleveland.
Dinse, Allen & Erdmann, Burlington, Vt., for Tsagarakos.
Dick, Hackel & Hull, Rutland, Vt., for Safeco Ins. Co.
This case arises from a fatal accident which occurred on Interstate 89 in Williston, Vermont, on December 4, 1970. The plaintiff's decedent, Eugene Rhault, was standing beside his auto, stopped along the highway, when a collision involving the decedent's and three other vehicles occurred. He died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Two of the vehicles involved were operated by defendants Tsagarakos and Cleveland. The third vehicle, which displayed an Alabama registration, left the scene of the accident and was never located. The identity of its driver is unknown.
Rhault's estate brought suit against Cleveland and Tsagarakos and against Safeco Insurance Company, the decedent's automobile insurance carrier, on the basis of an uninsured motorist clause in the insurance contract. Subsequently the plaintiff obtained a $10,000 settlement with Tsagarakos. Safeco then moved for summary judgment, contending that the Tsagarakos settlement negates its obligation under the uninsured motorist clause. These facts and the provisions of the insurance agreement are not in dispute.
The policy provisions upon which Safeco relies in support of its motion for summary of judgment state:
Safeco's position is that the Tsagarakos settlement negates its obligation on two grounds: (1) the settlement was obtained without Safeco's consent, contrary to "Exclusion (a)"; and (2) when the insurer's liability limit of $10,000 is reduced by the amount of the Tsagarakos settlement, as required by "Condition 6(b)(1)(ii)", Safeco's liability is reduced to zero.
These contentions must be measured in the light of the standard provisions relating to uninsured motorists' protection required by 23 V.S.A. § 941. This statute was enacted in 1967 and is entitled "AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE INSURANCE OF PERSONS AGAINST DAMAGES CAUSED BY UNINSURED OR UNKNOWN MOTORISTS, AND TO FIX MINIMUM LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE." 1967, No. 374 (Adj.Sess.), § 1 eff. July 1, 1968. It provides:
Since the Supreme Court of Vermont has not afforded a judicial interpretation of this statute, this court must construe its meaning without the aid of state precedent.
It is established beyond question that contracts of liability insurance are subject to statutory provisions and are deemed to include the statutory requirements whether they are contained in the insuring agreement or not. The terms of the policy are without force to detract from the requirements of the statute. See Biller v. Meyer (7th Cir. 1929), 33 F.2d 440; Lorando v. Gethro, 228 Mass. 181, 117 N.E. 185, 188; 7 Am.Jur.2d Automobile Insurance § 211.
The design of the statute is to protect a responsibly insured motorist against the unfortunate hazard presented by an injury inflicted in an accident with an irresponsible operator who is uninsured or has fled the scene, leaving the insured without recourse for the damage inflicted by an irresponsible operator. The statute has fashioned the means to benefit an insured who has provided protection for others, to obtain protection for himself. Of course he pays a premium for this protection. Thus the law attempts to provide coverage in the insured's own policy, and at his premium, where it does not exist with the other operator so that he may have at least the statutory protection in all events. And the court must construe the policy and the statutory provision to achieve the primary purpose of the enactment. American Mutual Insurance Company v. Romero, 428 F.2d 870, 873 (10th Cir. 1970).
To this end the standard provisions require every automobile liability insurance policy to protect the insured against injury caused by an uninsured...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Robertson, CC941
...F.Supp. 1229 (S.D.Ala.1970); Grayson v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 313 F.Supp. 1002 (D.P.R.1970) (applying New Jersey law); Rhault v. Tsagarakos, 361 F.Supp. 202 (D.Vt.1973); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Lambert, 291 Ala. 645, 285 So.2d 917 (1973) (dictum); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Inc. v......
-
Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14722
...be determined in light of any substantive defenses that would have been available to the uninsured motorist. 10 See Rhault v. Tsagarakos, 361 F.Supp. 202 (D.Vt.1973); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 51 Ala.App. 426, 286 So.2d 302 (1973); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. C......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb
...538 P.2d 865 (1975). But cf., Gulf American Fire Casualty Co. v. McNeal, 115 Ga.App. 286, 154 S.E.2d 411, 417 (1967); Rhault v. Tsagarakos, 361 F.Supp. 202 (D.Vt.1973). 11 Although not relied upon by the Court of Special Appeals or the respondent, it should be noted that there may be a whol......
-
Wescott v. Allstate Ins.
...would otherwise go without redress from the individual victim to the insurance industry for a premium. As stated in Rhault v. Tsagarakos, 361 F.Supp. 202 (U.S.D.C. D.Vt.1973): "The statute has fashioned the means to benefit an insured who has provided protection for others, to obtain protec......