Case Title: Chamberlain v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Citation: 171 Vt. 513, 756 A.2d 1246

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Chamberlain v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (99-118); 
171 Vt. 513; 756 A.2d 1246 

[Filed 12-Jun-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-118

                               MAY TERM, 2000

James Chamberlain	               }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Caledonia Superior Court
	                               }	
Metropolitan Property and Casualty     }
Insurance Company	               }	DOCKET NO. 73-3-98 Cacv

		                                Trial Judge: Alan W. Cook, J.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff James Chamberlain appeals a Caledonia Superior Court grant
  of summary  judgment to defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty
  Insurance Company.  Plaintiff argues  that he is entitled to the "each
  accident" limit of $300,000 in underinsured motorist coverage under  his
  policy with defendant, thus the court erred in limiting his claim to the
  $100,000 "each person"  amount.  We affirm.  

       The relevant facts are undisputed.  Plaintiff and his former wife were
  injured in a motor  vehicle accident on May 31, 1992.  At the time of the
  accident, an automobile insurance policy  previously issued by defendant to
  plaintiff was in effect, that provided liability protections and  coverage
  for uninsured and underinsured motorists for bodily injury and property
  damage.  Plaintiff  and his former wife filed suit against the driver of
  the other vehicle.  Plaintiff  ultimately settled,  with defendant's
  permission, for the full amount of the other driver's automobile liability
  limit of  $100,000, while his former wife settled for less than that
  amount.  

       Plaintiff alone then pursued an underinsured-motorist claim against
  defendant, contending  that underinsured motorist coverage with a limit of
  $300,000 was available to him under the  policy's "each accident" limit. 
  Defendant, citing the policy's "each person" limit of $100,000,  denied the
  claim, arguing that plaintiff's loss was not underinsured pursuant to the
  terms of the  policy.  The relevant uninsured-motorist coverage language,
  (FN1) contained in Section IV of the  policy, states:

 
		
     Limits of Liability
		
     The limit shown in the Declarations for "each person" is the 
     maximum we will pay to any one person for all damages resulting 
     from any one accident.  The limit shown in the Declarations for 
     "each accident" is the maximum we will pay to two or more persons.

       Both parties moved for summary judgment.  The superior court granted
  defendant's motion, finding  the policy unambiguous and relying on language
  from a separate and unrelated section of the  insurance contract which
  showed that the "each accident" limitation on coverage was subject to the 
  "each person" limitation on coverage. (FN2)  Plaintiff appealed to this
  Court.
	
       Plaintiff argues that the court erred in relying on a separate section
  of the policy to limit his claim to  $100,000.  He contends that the policy
  language is ambiguous and, in conjunction with the facts of  this case, it
  affords plaintiff $300,000 of underinsured motorist coverage. 

       We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard as the
  superior court. Madden v.  Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 306, 309,