Zator v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1988
• Docket Number: No. 12292,12292
• Citation: 752 P.2d 1073,69 Haw. 594
• Parties: Walter ZATOR, next friend of Alan Ronald Zator, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Walter ZATOR, next friend of Alan Ronald Zator, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 1073

752 P.2d 1073

69 Haw. 594

Walter ZATOR, next friend of Alan Ronald Zator, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois

corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Walter ZATOR, next friend of Alan Ronald Zator, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois

corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12292.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

April 4, 1988.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other.

2. Where statutory language is unclear, we may look to the policies behind the enactment of the statutory provisions to ascertain legislative intent.

3. The no-fault statute of limitations may be tolled by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-13 if the claimant is mentally incompetent at the time the cause of action accrued.

4. A guardian of the property of a disabled person has the power to prosecute claims for the protection of assets unless otherwise limited. Any limitations must be expressly endorsed upon the letters of guardianship. Absent such limitations, the statute of limitations for a no-fault claim commences running upon the guardian's appointment. And, if such a guardian fails to bring the claim within the statute of limitations period, she is barred from recovering these benefits on the disabled person's behalf.

Dennis K. Ferm (Ian L. Mattoch, with him on the brief), Honolulu, for Walter Zator.

Kevin P.H. Sumida (Clyde Wm. Matsui, Randall Y.S. Chung, and Gary W.B. Chang, with him on the brief), Honolulu, for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ.

LUM, Chief Justice.

I.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has certified two questions of law to this court based upon the following set of facts:

On November 14, 1979, Alan Zator ("Zator") was struck by a car while he was walking across a highway, and was rendered mentally incompetent as a result. Zator's attorney and State Farm Insurance Co. (the insurer of the alleged driver) exchanged letters establishing that Zator's personal injury claims would be settled for $25,000 leaving open his claim for no-fault benefits. On September 23, 1981, Rosemary Leary was appointed by a Hawaii state court as guardian of Zator's property. The letter of guardianship expressly authorized Leary to settle the $25,000 personal injury claim. Shortly thereafter, Leary settled the $25,000 personal injury claim on Zator's behalf.

Leary took no action to pursue the no-fault claim. However, on July 6, 1984, Zator's attorney wrote a letter to State Farm requesting payment of the no-fault benefits. On August 7, 1985, Walter Zator--Zator's father--filed suit in U.S. District Court as next friend of Alan Zator. Walter Zator sought a declaratory judgment that Zator was entitled to $15,000 in no-fault benefits.

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the suit had not been filed within the two-year statute of limitation period provided in the Hawaii no-fault chapter, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 294-36. ¹ Walter Zator filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. He noted that HRS § 657-13, a provision in the Hawaii chapter on statutes of limitation, tolls the running of the limitation period if at the time a cause of action accrues the person entitled to bring the action is insane. ² He then argued that HRS § 657-13 applies to the no-fault limitation period set forth in HRS § 294-36, and thus operated to toll the running of the statute of limitation on Zator's no-fault claim because of Zator's disability.

The district court agreed with Walter Zator's argument that the tolling provision in HRS § 657-13 applies to the no-fault limitation period.

Nevertheless, the court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the letter of guardianship gave Leary the power to prosecute Zator's no-fault claim, notwithstanding Walter Zator's argument that Leary only had authority to pursue the $25,000 personal injury claim. The court stated that HRS § 560:5-424(c)(24) grants the guardian of a disabled person's property the power to prosecute claims for the protection of estate assets unless otherwise limited. The court found that Leary had not been limited from pursuing Zator's no-fault claim.

The court then held that the Hawaii tolling provision ceased to apply when Leary obtained the right of action over the no-fault claim. Thus, the two-year statute of limitation began to run when Leary was appointed guardian over Zator's property. The court concluded that because Zator's no-fault claim had been brought more than two years after Leary's appointment, the claim was barred by the statute of limitation.

II.

The certified questions as posed to this court read:

1) Does the tolling provision of HRS § 657-13 apply to toll the running of the two-year statute of limitation period prescribed by HRS § 294-36?

2) Did the statute of limitation on Zator's no-fault claim begin to run when Leary was appointed as guardian of Zator's property?

III.

Our answer to the first question is yes. The no-fault statute of limitations set forth in HRS § 294-36 bars the bringing of a suit for no-fault benefits more than two years from the date of the motor vehicle accident. However, the statute is silent as to whether it is tolled if the person entitled to bring the suit is rendered insane on account of the accident. The general tolling provision for statutes of limitations set forth in HRS § 657-13 provides for tolling of the statute in cases of insanity. Therefore, the two statutes obviously create an ambiguity in the law which requires this court to determine whether the tolling provision of HRS § 657-13 applies to toll HRS § 294-36.

"Laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other...." HRS § 1-16 (emphasis added).

Where statutory language is unclear, we may look to the policies behind the enactment of the statutory provisions to ascertain legislative intent. State v. Taylor, 49 Haw. 624, 425 P.2d 1014 (1967). State Farm asserts that the policy behind the no-fault chapter favors prompt compensation of claims and dictates strict compliance with its two-year limitations period. Walter Zator argues that such policy favors liberal construction of the statute to achieve the beneficial purpose of the chapter.

State Farm's position fails because we are unable to discern a legislative policy which supports a legislative intent to allow for tolling of general statutes of limitations for those unable, for reasons of insanity, to assert their claims, but to disallow for such tolling under the no-fault statute of limitations. We cannot presume that the legislature intended a discriminatory and illogical policy.

In Hun v. Center Properties, 63 Haw. 273, 626 P.2d 182, reh'g denied, 63 Haw. 676 (1981), we held that the tolling provision of HRS § 657-13 applies to toll the two-year limitations period set forth in HRS § 663-3 under the wrongful death statute. We stated that...