Case Title: Monteith v. Jefferson Insurance Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-244


 Joseph Monteith                              Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Washington Superior Court

 Jefferson Insurance Company                  May Term, 1992
 of New York and Peerless
 Insurance Company



 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 Richard H. Saudek of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., Montpelier, for
    plaintiff-appellant

 Samuel Hoar, Jr. and Frederick S. Lane III of Dinse, Erdmann & Clapp,
    Burlington, for defendant-appellee Jefferson Insurance Company of New
 York

 David L. Cleary and Ellen J. Abbott of David L. Cleary Associates, Rutland,
    for defendant-appellee Peerless Insurance Company



 PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Peck, J., (Ret.),
           Specially Assigned



      JOHNSON, J.      Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by an
 automobile while riding his motorcycle.  He suffered total personal injury
 damages exceeding $200,000, and recovered only $100,000 from the insurer for
 the driver of the other vehicle, whose negligence caused the accident.  He
 appeals from a trial court decision holding that two insurers with whom he
 had policies are not liable for his additional damages under policy pro-
 visions covering accidents with underinsured motorists.  We reverse.
      At the time of the accident, plaintiff had a policy with defendant
 Jefferson Insurance Company of New York covering his motorcycle and
 providing $100,000 in uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM)
 coverage.  Plaintiff also had a policy with defendant Peerless Insurance
 Company covering plaintiff's automobiles and providing $300,000 of UM/UIM
 coverage.
      Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action, claiming that both
 Jefferson and Peerless were obligated under their respective policies to pay
 him the difference between the damages he suffered and the amount he
 recovered from the underinsured tortfeasor, up to the maximum amount of
 $400,000 available to him under the two policies.
      Defendant Peerless moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
 plaintiff's policy contained an explicit provision excluding from coverage
 any injuries sustained while "occupying . . . any motor vehicle owned by you
 . . . which is not insured for coverage under this policy . . .".  Defendant
 Jefferson moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff was
 covered for only $100,000 under his policy with Jefferson, an amount
 already recovered by plaintiff from the tortfeasor thus discharging
 Jefferson's duty to plaintiff.  Jefferson further argued that its policy
 could not be "stacked" with the Peerless policy to create a total available
 coverage amount of $400,000, because the exclusion provision of the Peerless
 policy barred any recovery against Peerless.
      In opposing defendants' joint motion for summary judgment, plaintiff
 argued that the tortfeasor was underinsured under 23 V.S.A. { 941(f), thus
 allowing a claim against Peerless, whose $300,000 UIM limit was clearly in
 excess of the $100,000 maximum recovery limit of the tortfeasor's insurer,
 as well as against Jefferson, since the total underinsurance coverage
 available under the two policies, pursuant to { 941(f), was $400,000.
 Plaintiff claimed that he should be permitted to "stack" the UIM coverage of
 the two policies at issue.
       The trial court granted Peerless's summary judgment motion, holding
 that the exclusion provision contained in its policy barred recovery for
 injuries suffered by plaintiff because his motorcycle was a motor vehicle
 owned by plaintiff and not covered under the Peerless policy.  The court
 also granted Jefferson's summary judgment motion, holding that its UIM
 coverage limit of $100,000 matched the $100,000 recovery limit of the
 tortfeasor's insurance, thus eliminating any claim of underinsurance.  The
 present appeal followed.

                                     I.
      The focus of dispute with regard to the Peerless policy is a clause
 providing in pertinent part:
           We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage (FN1) for,...
 bodily injury sustained by any person:

               1.  While occupying . . . any motor vehicle owned by
              you . . . which is not insured for this coverage under
              this policy.

 Plaintiff does not dispute that this clause excludes coverage, but argues
 that it violates Vermont law.  We agree.  23 V.S.A. { 941(a)(emphasis
 supplied) provides, in pertinent part, that:
         No policy insuring against liability arising out of the
         ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle may
         be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with
         respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally
         garaged in this state unless coverage is provided
         therein, or supplemental thereto, for the protection of
         persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to
         recover damages, from owners or operators of uninsured,
         underinsured or hit-and-run motor vehicles, for bodily
         injury, sickness or disease, including death, and for
         property damages resulting from the ownership, mainten-
         ance or use of such uninsured, underinsured or hit-and-
         run motor vehicle.
 Referring to { 941(a), we stated in Sanders v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.,
 148 Vt. 496, 498-99,