Safeco Ins. Companies v. Vetre
| Decision Date | 28 February 1978 |
| Citation | 174 Conn. 329,387 A.2d 539 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANIES v. Frank F. VETRE, Administrator (ESTATE of Gerald C. VETRE) et al. |
T. Paul Tremont, Bridgeport, with whom were James H. Aspinwall, Stratford, and, on the brief, Robert R. Sheldon, Bridgeport, for the appellants (defendants).
Paul E. Pollock, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were Arnold J. Bai and James E. Coyne, Bridgeport, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
The plaintiff, Safeco Insurance Companies, hereinafter Safeco, brought this action for a declaratory judgment, alleging that on June 1, 1970, it issued an automobile insurance policy to Frank F. Vetre and on September 1, 1970, issued an automobile insurance policy to Gerald C. Vetre; that both policies were in effect on November 21, 1970; that on November 21, 1970, Gerald Vetre was a resident in the household of his father, Frank Vetre; that Gerald Vetre died as a result of an accident on November 21, 1970, involving an automobile owned by Raymond R. Miller and operated by John G. Beresky; and that because the Miller automobile was uninsured, Frank Vetre, as administrator of the estate of Gerald Vetre, presented a claim to Safeco pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of the two policies.
In its complaint Safeco claimed that in accordance with the "other insurance" provisions of those policies of insurance, the maximum amount of recovery available to the defendant Vetre, as administrator, under the respective uninsured motorist endorsements of those policies was $20,000, prorated between the two policies.
Thereafter, the administrator filed an answer and counterclaim wherein he sought a declaratory judgment seeking to determine the maximum amount of recovery available under those policies. The administrator claimed that he should be permitted to aggregate the maximum coverage afforded under the uninsured motorist endorsements of the two policies to the full extent of the actual damages incurred.
The trial court declared that where an insured is covered by two policies, both of which contain "other insurance" or "proration" clauses, the total liability under both policies cannot exceed the higher applicable limits of liability on either and that the maximum potential recovery of the administrator is $20,000 prorated between the policies. From that judgment, the administrator has appealed, assigning error in the court's conclusions and in the overruling of claims of law.
On this appeal, the defendant administrator makes two claims: (1) the defendants are entitled under § 38-175a(a) of the General Statutes and § 38-175a-6(d) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies to aggregate the uninsured motorist coverages of the two policies of insurance issued by Safeco; and (2) the defendants also are entitled to aggregate the separate uninsured motorist coverages of the single policy of insurance covering two vehicles issued by Safeco.
It is undisputed that as a result of the fatal injuries sustained by Gerald Vetre, the damages could exceed $60,000. Because the Miller vehicle was uninsured, the only insurance coverage available to the administrator was under the uninsured motorist provisions of the two Vetre policies. The first, policy No. N8A 390526, insured the decedent's vehicle and contained an uninsured motorist endorsement of $20,000. The second, policy No. N147678, under which the decedent was covered as a member of the household of the named insured provided coverage for two automobiles and contained two separate uninsured motorist endorsements of $20,000 for which separate premiums were charged by and paid to the plaintiff.
To begin with, § 38-175a-6(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies expressly provides that "(t)he insurer shall undertake to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle . . . because of bodily injury sustained by the insured caused by an accident involving the uninsured motor vehicle." (Emphasis added.) That regulation clearly permits recovery under an uninsured motorist provision of all such damages as the court or jury may find were sustained by an insured up to the full extent of coverage.
An insurer may reduce its liability under an uninsured motorist provision only as is permitted by § 38-175a-6(d) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, that is, the policy may provide for a reduction to the extent that damages have been paid by or on behalf of any person responsible for the injury, 1 paid or are payable under workmen's compensation or disability benefit laws, paid under the policy in settlement of a liability claim, or paid or are payable under any provision of the policy for direct indemnity for medical expenses or basic reparation benefits.
Other than those exceptions, the regulations do not authorize any reduction of coverage because of "other insurance." Moreover, any provisions of a private contract of insurance which conflict with the statutes or regulations must give way to the latter. General Statutes § 38-175d. The "other insurance" provisions, therefore, cannot prevent aggregation of the uninsured motorist coverage of the two policies in question. Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 370 A.2d 1006 (1976).
We now consider policy No. N147678, a contract of insurance between Safeco and Frank Vetre, under which the decedent was insured as a member of the household. The uninsured motorist endorsement for each of two covered vehicles in that policy was $20,000 per person, $20,000 per accident, and separate premiums for each coverage were charged by and paid to Safeco for each vehicle. Paragraph four of the "conditions" portion of the policy specifically sets forth that "(w)hen two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of this policy shall apply separately to each." (Emphasis added.)
The administrator contends that the language of the policy is clear:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co.
...Conn. 449, 453, 456 A.2d 335 (1983); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, 187 Conn. 386, 394-97, 446 A.2d 1059 (1982); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 329, 333-35, 387 A.2d 539 (1978). We have repeatedly held that General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) §§ 38-175a 5 and 38-175c, 6 and § 38-175a-6(a), 7......
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode
...allowed where the insured was covered by two or more policies and was injured by an uninsured motorist. 7 See Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 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 C......
-
Smith v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Ins. Co., 1142
...(1976); no edification whatever is available on this question, either from the Connecticut courts, see, e. g., Safeco Ins. Cos. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 329, 387 A.2d 539 (1978); Rosnick v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 172 Conn. 416, 374 A.2d 1076 (1977); Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 1......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lenda
...449, 452-53, 456 A.2d 335 (1983); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode, [supra, 187 Conn. at 398-99], 446 A.2d 1059; Safeco Ins. Co. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 329, 332-33, 387 A.2d 539 (1978); Pecker v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 171 Conn. 443, 448-51, 370 A.2d 1006 (1976)." Streitweiser v. Middlesex Mu......
-
The Changing Landscape of Uninsured/underinsured Mortorist Insurance Law in Connecticut
...which its limits of liability bore to the total coverage afforded by all UM coverage. 16. See also Safeco Insurance Co. v. Vetre, 174 Conn. 329, 332-333, 387 A.2d 539, 541 (1978). 17. 174 Conn. 329, 387 A.2d 539 (1978). 18. Sellers v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 214 So. 2d 879, 882 ......