Yamaguchi v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS., Civ. No. 79-0083.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 79-0083.
• Citation: Yamaguchi v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS., 515 F.Supp. 186 (D. Haw. 1980)
• Parties: Thelma YAMAGUCHI, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stanley Yamaguchi, deceased, Robin Yamaguchi, minor, and Lynne Yamaguchi, minor, by Thelma Yamaguchi, their Guardian Prochein Ami, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

515 F. Supp. 186

Thelma YAMAGUCHI, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stanley Yamaguchi, deceased, Robin Yamaguchi, minor, and Lynne Yamaguchi, minor, by Thelma Yamaguchi, their Guardian Prochein Ami, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant.

Civ. No. 79-0083.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii.

December 23, 1980.

Raymond J. Tam, Roy K. S. Chang, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs; Shim, Sigal, Tam & Naito, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel.

James Kawashima, Ronald Y. K. Leong, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant; Kobayashi, Watanabe, Sugita & Kawashima, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel.

DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KASHIWA, Judge.^*

This is an action against an insurer to recover no-fault benefits under a Hawaii no-fault insurance policy. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment and defendant has countered with its own motion for partial summary judgment. I hold in favor of plaintiffs on their motion for partial summary judgment for the amount indicated in the opinion to follow.

The undisputed material facts giving rise to this action are as follows:

1. On or about May 26, 1978, STANLEY YAMAGUCHI was a passenger in an automobile, a 1972 Dodge station wagon, involved in an accident on the Island and County of Hawaii, and died as a result thereof on May 26, 1978. The Dodge station wagon was driven by GARY YAMAGUCHI. The other car involved in the collision was a 1977 Ford pickup driven by one DAVID GOMES.

2. At the date and time of the accident, STANLEY YAMAGUCHI owned two cars, a 1971 Volkswagon and a 1970 Camero which were insured by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, and said Hawaii no-fault automobile insurance policies were in full force and effect. True and correct copies of these policies, Nos. 145-635-E11-51A and 231-526-C23-51 are attached to the complaint filed by plaintiffs. The policies had aggregate no-fault benefit limits of $50,000.00 each. There were separate policies and separate premiums were paid on both.

3. At the time of the accident, STANLEY YAMAGUCHI was 44 years old and employed by United Airlines as an aircraft mechanic, earning approximately $2,854.00 per month.

4. The insurance policies issued by State Farm to MR. YAMAGUCHI provided in pertinent part:

The company State Farm will pay, in accordance with the Hawaii no-fault law, no-fault benefits on account of accidental harm sustained by an eligible injured person and caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle.

* * * * * *

No-fault benefits shall consist of and be defined as:

....

(c) Work Loss — Loss of monthly earnings resulting from the inability of the eligible injured person to engage in gainful activity or a decrease in earning capacity because of accidental harm.

* * * * * *

When used in reference to this coverage: Accidental harm — means bodily injury, death, sickness or disease caused by a motor vehicle accident to a person.

....

Eligible injured person — means

(a) The named insured or any relative who sustains accidental harm arising out of the operation, maintenance use of, or while a pedestrian caused by, any motor vehicle ....

(Emphasis added.)

5. On or about June 27, 1978, Plaintiff THELMA YAMAGUCHI, surviving spouse of STANLEY YAMAGUCHI, filed a claim with State Farm for the full no-fault benefits payable under the policies. She sought the aggregate limit of $50,000.00 from each policy or $100,000.00 to recover earnings loss caused by the death of her husband. Despite repeated oral and written demands from Plaintiffs, State Farm has refused and still refuses to pay Plaintiffs no-fault benefits up to the aggregate no-fault limits of the policies.

6. On August 8, 1978, Plaintiff MRS. YAMAGUCHI received a check for $15,000.00 from National Union Fire Insurance Co., insurers of the vehicle in which STANLEY YAMAGUCHI was a passenger, to compensate for survivors' loss.

7. State Farm contends that it is not liable up to the aggregate no-fault limits for earnings loss caused by YAMAGUCHI's death, even though MR. YAMAGUCHI would have earned substantially more than the limits combined in his lifetime, had he not been killed. State Farm claims that Plaintiffs cannot recover no-fault benefits from more than one insurer.

8. Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment against State Farm or $100,000.00, the combined aggregate $50,000.00 no-fault limits of the two State Farm policies, pursuant to Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit expended in making their claims herein, pursuant to Sections 294-30(a) and 294-4(3) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and State Farm's policies. Plaintiffs further pray for interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month on all unpaid no-fault benefits from November 20, 1978, pursuant to Section 294-4(2) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

With relation to plaintiffs' claim for reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of suit expended and interest, this court will reserve the question for a future date upon proper motion, supporting affidavits and other necessary proof.

The court will only concern itself for the present with plaintiffs' claim of $100,000.00 on the two policies.

I HAWAII NO-FAULT STATUTE

Under the Hawaii no-fault law, Hawaii Rev.Stat. ch. 294 (1976 Replacement), every no-fault automobile insurance policy issued in Hawaii must provide coverage for certain "no-fault benefits." Hawaii Rev. Stat.Secs. 294-4 and 294-10. These "no-fault benefits" are defined by Hawaii Rev. Stat.Sec. 294-2(10) (Supp.1978) to include:

(c) Monthly earnings loss measured by an amount equal to the lesser of

(i) $800 per month, or

(ii) The monthly earnings for the period during which the accidental harm results in the inability to engage in available and appropriate gainful activity, or

(iii) A monthly amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the lesser of (i) or (ii) exceeds any lower monthly earnings of the person sustaining injury at the time he resumes gainful activity.

(Emphasis added.)

"Accidental harm" is statutorily defined as "bodily injury, death, sickness, or disease caused by a motor vehicle accident to a person." Hawaii Rev.Stat.Sec. 294-2(1) (1976 Replacement). (Emphasis added.)

"Injury" is also statutorily defined in this same section as "accidental harm not resulting in death." Hawaii Rev.Stat.Sec. 294-2(4) (1976 Replacement).

Hawaii Rev.Stat.Sec. 294-3(a) (1976 Replacement) provides that if an accident "causing accidental harm occurs in this State, every person, insured under this chapter, and his survivors, suffering from loss from accidental harm arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle has a right to no-fault benefits." (Emphasis added.)

The insurer's obligation to pay no-fault benefits is detailed in Hawaii Rev.Stat.Sec. 294-4(1)(B) (Supp.1978), which states in pertinent part:

(B) In the case of death arising out of a motor vehicle accident of any person ... the insurer shall pay, without regard to fault, to the legal representative of such person, for the benefit of the surviving spouse and any dependent ... an amount equal to the no-fault benefits payable to such spouse and dependent as a result of the death of such person, subject, however, to the provisions of section 292-2(10) the section which defines "no-fault benefits" and which is quoted in part above.

(Emphasis added.)

In short, coverage for "monthly earnings loss" is a basic no-fault benefit that must be included in any no-fault automobile policy issued in Hawaii. If the insured dies as a result of the accident, the insurer must pay all amounts due under this coverage provision to the legal representative of the decedent, for the benefit of the surviving spouse and any dependents, "subject to" the provisions of Section 294-2(10). Under Section 294-2(10), the amount of earnings loss is measured by the period during which "accidental harm," including death, results in an inability to work, subject to a ceiling of $800.00 per month.

The Hawaii State Legislature, in enacting the Hawaii no-fault law, clearly intended to provide for reparations for loss of earnings caused by either non-fatal injury or death. As originally enacted, Sec. 294-2(10)(c) provided that monthly earnings loss should be measured by:

(i) same as current section

(ii) The monthly earnings for the period during which the injury or death results in the inability to engage in available and appropriate gainful activity, or

(iii) same as current section

Act 203, 1973 Hawaii Sess.Laws (emphasis added).

In 1974, the Legislature inserted the term "accidental harm" in place of the term "injury or death," wherever applicable in the statute. The Conference Committee report on the amendment stated that this was done for purposes of "clarity." S.Conf. Com.Rep. No. 28-74, Seventh State Leg., Reg.Sess. (1974), reprinted in 1974 Senate Journal at 776, 781-82 (1974). An earlier report by the Senate Consumer Protection Committee specifically stated: "This technical change clarifies the law to include coverage for deaths." S.Stand.Com.Rep. No. 467-74, Seventh State Leg., Reg.Sess. (1974), reprinted in 1974 Senate Journal at 940, 941 (1974). As noted, the term "accidental harm" includes "death" within its definition. Hawaii Rev.Stat.Sec. 294-2(1) (1976 Replacement).

It is significant to note that the Legislature drew a clear distinction between "accidental harm," which includes death, and "injury," which is defined by the no-fault law as "accidental harm not resulting in death." Hawaii Rev.Stat.Sec. 294-2(4) (1976 Replacement). By using the term "accidental harm" rather than the term "injury" in the no-fault benefits provisions, the Legislature demonstrated its intention to include loss of earnings caused by death as a basic benefit...