Shea v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 14 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-208,79-208 |
| Citation | 120 N.H. 106,411 A.2d 1118 |
| Parties | William R. SHEA v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Laflamme, Champagne & Moquin, Manchester (Richard C. Moquin, Manchester, orally), for plaintiff.
Devine, Millimet, Stahl & Branch, Manchester (Lee C. Nyquist, Manchester, orally), for defendant.
The issue in this case is whether an insured, who is injured while a passenger in an automobile that he does not own and that is not furnished for his regular use, may stack the medical payments coverage provided for each vehicle insured under a single family automobile policy. We hold that under the terms of this policy the insured may stack the coverage.
The plaintiff was seriously injured when the automobile in which he was a passenger struck a telephone pole. The car belonged to a friend. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff incurred substantial medical bills. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was an insured under a family automobile policy. In addition to the typical bodily injury, property damage, collision and uninsured motorist coverage, the policy provided for medical payments benefits with a per person liability limit of $5,000 for each of the three vehicles covered by the policy. A separate premium was assessed each vehicle.
The "Expenses for Medical Services" portions of the policy reads as follows:
Coverage C Medical Payments : To pay all reasonable expenses incurred within one year from the date of accident for necessary medical, surgical, X-Ray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services:
(b) while occupying a non-owned automobile, but only if such person has, or reasonably believes he has, the permission of the owner to use the automobile and the use is within the scope of such permission, or . . . .
"Non-owned automobile" is defined as "an automobile or trailer not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative, other than a temporary substitute automobile."
The policy also states that the limit of liability for medical payments stated in the declarations as applicable to "each person" is the limit of the company's liability for all expenses incurred by or on behalf of each person who sustains bodily injury as the result of any one accident."
In a section of the policy entitled "Conditions," the following language appears: "Two or More Automobiles Parts I, II and III: When two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of this policy shall apply separately to each . . . ." (Emphasis added.)
The insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident paid the plaintiff $1,000, the medical payments limit under that policy. The plaintiff then presented a claim to his insurer, the defendant, for $15,000, the recoverable amount if the plaintiff has a right to the $5,000 medical payment policy limit for each of the three cars insured by the policy. The defendant paid the plaintiff $5,000, the maximum medical payment provided for any one vehicle, contending that that was the extent of its liability.
The plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment pursuant to RSA 491:22, and the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts. Following a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. After the court denied the motion, the plaintiff excepted, and Goode, J., reserved and transferred the case to this court.
The defendant asserts that our holding in Eckert v. Green Mountain Ins. Co., 118 N.H. 701, 394 A.2d 55 (1978) controls this case. The plaintiff in Eckert, like Mr. Shea in this case, sought to stack the medical payment benefits provided by a family combination automobile policy that covered more than one car. However, the insured in Eckert was injured while occupying "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimes v. Concord General Mut. Ins. Co., 79-360
...Although we have in the past regarded the payment of double premiums as a factor to be considered, see e. g. Shea v. United Services Auto. Assoc., 120 N.H. ---, 411 A.2d 1118 (1980); Eckert v. Green Mt. Ins. Co., 118 N.H. 701, 705, 394 A.2d 55, 58 (1978), we do not view it as dispositive. R......
-
Rodenbough v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 4830-III-6
...Ins. Co. v. Sweet, 186 So.2d 95 (Fla.App.1966); Easley v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 372 So.2d 1067 (La.App.1979); Shea v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 120 N.H. 106, 411 A.2d 1118 (1980); Woods v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 295 N.C. 500, 246 S.E.2d 773 (1978); Virginia Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wolf......
-
Maher v. Chase
...case law reveals that the principle of stacking has been applied only to UM/UIM or medical payment coverage. Shea v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 120 N.H. 106, 108 (1980). Cacavas v. Maine Bonding & Cas. Co, 128 N.H. at 205, 207-208. See Green Mountain Ins. Co. v. Bonney, 131 N.H. at 768; Uni......
-
Merchants Mut. Ins. Group v. Orthopedic Professional Ass'n
...two or three times over. See Bertolami v. Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., 120 N.H. 308, 414 A.2d 1281 (1980); Shea v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 120 N.H. 106, 411 A.2d 1118 (1980). "The rights and remedies under RSA chapter 281 are purely statutory. The nature and extent of compensation to the......