Satterfield v. Erie Ins. Property and Cas.

• Decision Date: 30 June 2005
• Docket Number: No. 32511.,32511.
• Citation: 618 S.E.2d 483
• Parties: Jessica SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, Defendant Below, Appellee.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 483

618 S.E.2d 483

Jessica SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, Defendant Below, Appellee.

No. 32511.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: June 15, 2005.

Filed: June 30, 2005.

Patrick E. McFarland, Patrick E. McFarland, P.L.L.C., Parkersburg, for the Appellant.

George M. Torres, Parkersburg, for the Appellee.

Chief Justice ALBRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court.

ALBRIGHT, Chief Justice.

Jessica Satterfield appeals from the March 3, 2004, order of the Circuit Court of Pleasants County granting summary judgment to Appellee Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company ("Erie") in connection with an issue of coverage that involves the "newly acquired auto clause" in a commercial auto policy. Based on the fact that the insured, Dale Williamson, had contacted Erie prior to the accident that resulted in injuries to Ms. Satterfield for the purpose of including the insured vehicle under Mr. Williamson's family auto policy, the trial court concluded that the coverage extended by the "newly acquired auto clause" in Mr. Williams' commercial auto policy was no longer applicable. Upon our review of this issue in conjunction with a careful review of the policy language and case law from other jurisdictions, we conclude that the unambiguous language of the commercial auto policy fails to exclude coverage under the "newly acquired auto clause" upon the occurrence of the inclusion of a new vehicle on a separate policy issued by Appellee Erie. Given the lack of ambiguity in the policy terms at issue, we are required to apply the policy language as written without interpretation. Accordingly, we determine that the commercial policy at issue provides coverage under the "newly acquired auto clause" and reverse the decision of the circuit court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On September 15, 1999, Rosanna R. Williamson and her father, Dale, purchased a 1993 Pontiac Grand Am SE. Mr. Williamson added the vehicle to his family auto insurance policy with Erie on September 20, 1999. While operating the subject vehicle on October 7, 1999, Ms. Williamson lost control and the resulting single-vehicle accident caused serious injuries to the passenger, Ms. Satterfield.¹

Following a judgment that Ms. Satterfield obtained against Ms. Williamson and her parents, Erie paid the $100,000 policy limits to Ms. Satterfield under the family auto policy issued to Mr. Williamson. In addition to the proceeds provided by that policy, Ms. Satterfield sought an additional $100,000 from a commercial auto policy issued by Erie that Mr. Williamson had in effect at the time of the accident. Through the underlying declaratory judgment action, Ms. Satterfield sought a ruling requiring Erie to pay the policy limits under Mr. Williamson's commercial auto policy based on the "newly acquired auto clause"² in that policy.

In response to summary judgment motions filed by both Erie and Ms. Satterfield on the issue of coverage, the trial court granted Erie's motion based on its determination that Mr. Williamson specifically contracted with Erie for coverage of the subject vehicle under the family auto policy. The trial court opined that had Mr. Williamson not yet identified the newly acquired vehicle for coverage under the family auto policy, the coverage in question under the commercial policy "in all probability" would have been applicable. "[O]nce the subject vehicle was listed on the declarations sheet of another policy," the trial court reasoned that the vehicle "ceased to be a newly acquired auto for the purposes of the Commercial Policy." Through this appeal, Ms. Satterfield seeks a reversal of the trial court's ruling finding no coverage available to her under the commercial auto policy issued by Erie.

II. Standard of Review

Our standard of review is well established: "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). That same plenary standard applies to declaratory judgments. See Syl. Pt. 3, Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 459 (1995) ("A circuit court's entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo."). We proceed to determine whether the circuit court committed error in finding that the policy limits under the commercial auto policy issued to Mr. Williamson were unavailable to Ms. Satterfield.

III. Discussion

The Erie policy language provides that the insurer "will pay all sums anyone we protect legally must pay as damages caused by an accident covered by this policy" provided that "[t]he accident . . . arise[s] out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of an auto we insure." The policy includes a "newly acquired auto clause" that expressly extends coverage to "autos you acquired during the policy period."³ The only condition imposed in connection with extending coverage to such vehicles is that the insured "tell . . . [Erie] about newly acquired autos during the policy period in which the acquisition takes place."

Ms. Satterfield argues that there is no question that the subject vehicle qualified as an insured vehicle under the language of the commercial auto policy based on the clear policy language that extends coverage to newly acquired vehicles during the policy period where all the vehicles an insured owns are insured by Erie.⁴ Moreover, there is no dispute that Mr. Williamson met the policy requirement of notifying Erie during the subject policy period regarding the purchase of this particular vehicle.

In response to the contentions raised by Ms. Satterfield, Erie maintains that once the "newly acquired vehicle" was expressly included in the family policy, it lost its status as a "newly acquired vehicle" under the commercial policy. Consequently, Erie contends that the Appellant is barred from collecting proceeds under the commercial policy. To find otherwise, Erie argues, would require a "modification and re-interpretation of the insuring contract."

While the courts of this state have never addressed whether the specific identification of a newly purchased vehicle on the declarations sheet of one insurance policy precludes coverage for the newly acquired vehicle under a separate policy held by the insured with the same insurer, the issue has been addressed by courts in other jurisdictions. In Carey v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 367 F.2d 938 (4th Cir.1966), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether a second policy, a family automobile policy, provided coverage in addition to the individual policy issued on the subject vehicle. The insurer in Carey argued that when the additional specific insurance was purchased on the subject vehicle, the insured was electing to insure the vehicle solely under the individual policy and to waive any insurance available under the "owned automobile" clause of the family policy.⁵ Id. at 941.

In finding in favor of the insured, the Fourth Circuit reasoned:

We agree with the District Court in its holding that the Chevrolet was insured under the family policy as an after-acquired automobile. The insurer is bound by the express terms of its contract of insurance. When those terms, taken in their ordinary sense, convey a clear and unambiguous meaning, a court cannot indulge in ferreting out hidden meanings or unexpressed intentions to relieve the insurer of liabilities assumed in the policy. When ambiguities arise, the intent of the parties is controlling; but if any doubt remained it would, under the familiar rule, be resolved in favor of the insured since the insurer formulated the language in the policy. . . .

However, we find no ambiguity. The defendant, in clause (c)(2), expressly undertook to insure all after-acquired private passenger vehicles of the insured, provided that notice of the acquisition is given within 30 days. Virgil Foster [insured] gave the requisite notice. . . . The defendant's position that his notice operated either as a waiver or counter-offer is untenable. . . . It would be unreasonable to ascribe to Virgil Foster an intention to waive any additional protection to which he was entitled or to reject it by applying for specific insurance on the Chevrolet. If the defendant intended to insure the newly acquired automobiles only as long as no specific insurance was taken out to cover them, it could have stated this expressly. If, as defendant suggests, it is anomalous to have two policies covering the same automobile, specific language obviating this could have been included in the family policy. Indeed, the simple omission of the provision in question would have avoided all question. The provision means what it says.

367 F.2d at 941-42 (citation and footnote omitted and emphasis supplied).

Other courts have similarly found determinative the absence of policy language that either requires the insured to elect a specific policy under which coverage is being sought or simply terminates the automatic coverage where a vehicle is specifically named on the declarations sheet of one of multiple policies. Finding in favor of coverage where neither an election or termination provision was included, the New York Supreme Court reasoned in Goodman v. Allstate Insurance Co., 137 Misc.2d 963, 523 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y.Sup.1987):

[R]equiring the insured to purchase an additional policy did not alter the terms of the 1961 policy already in existence, which provided coverage for a newly-acquired vehicle. This Court will not attempt to find hidden meaning or an unexpressed intention in the cited clause⁶ in order to relieve the insurer of liability it unambiguously assumed. Rather, the clause must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. . . If the insurer intended to cover newly-acquired automobiles only so long as no specific insurance was purchased to cover them, it could and should have stated this expressly. For example, the policy at issue in Bramlett v. State Farm Mutual...