Case Title: SAYERS v SAFECO INS CO OF AMERIC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-05-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-436 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 DONALD W. SAYERS, et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial ~istrict, In and for the County of Silver Bow. Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Gene A . Picotte, Clancy, Montana For Respondent: D. L. Holland, Butte, Montana Corette Law Firm, Butte, Montana Henningsen, Purcell & Genzberger, Butte, Montana Kaylene M. Rubick, Richmond, California Anderson, Brown Law Firm, Billings, Montana William N. Geagan, Butte, Montana Filed: Submitted on briefs: April 8, 1981 Decided: May 26, 1981 MAY 26 1 9 Q r # u 9 -- . 1 ' - v Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of the Court. Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) appeals from an adverse judgment of the D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r B o w County. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o a b i f u r c a t e d proceeding and submitted two i s s u e s f o r adjudi- c a t i o n , reserving t h e r i g h t t o a jury t r i a l on damages i f necessary. The i s s u e s submitted were: 1. Whether o r n o t the p l a i n t i f f , Donald Sayers, was, a t t h e t i m e and place of the accident, "occupying" t h e automobile owned by Gary J. G a l e t t i within the d e f i n i t i o n of t h e term "occupying" a s defined i n t h e insurance policy issued t o G a l e t t i by Safeco. 2. Whether Sayers may stack t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y provided by p o l i c i e s issued by Safeco t o G a l e t t i on automobiles o t h e r than the automobile Sayers w a s "occupying" a t t h e t i m e of the accident. The D i s t r i c t Court decided Sayers- was' (1) "occupying1' t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e and ( 2 ) e n t i t l e d t o stack t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y on t h e Safeco p o l i c i e s covering automobiles not involved i n the accident. W e concur with t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Donald Sayers was i n j u r e d i n an a c c i d e n t involving t h r e e c a r s , one of which was owned by Charles Storm. The accident occurred October 4 , 1978, on K a w S t r e e t i n Butte, Montana. Storm had asked Sayers t o tune-up h i s 1.966 Mercury automobile. Sayers completed t h e tune-up and advised Storm he should run t h e engine t o clean t h e carburetor. Storm agreed and l e f t t o buy some gasoline. However, t h e v e h i c l e s e r v i c e r a n o u t of gas before he reached a / s t a t i o n . H e walked t h e s h o r t d i s t a n c e back, obtained a can of gasoline and b a t t e r y jumper c a b l e s from Sayers and rode back t o h i s s t a l l e d v e h i c l e w i t h a man named George Yates. They w e r e unable t o s t a r t Storm's c a r and Storm r e t u r n e d f o r S a y e r s ' help. Sayers, Storm and Gary J. G a l e t t i then drove t o Storm's c a r i n G a l e t t i ' s 1972 Chevrolet Suburban i n t e n d i n g t o use t h e v e h i c l e t o jump-start t h e c a r . G a l e t t i parked t e n t o twelve f e e t i n f r o n t of and f a c i n g Storm's c a r t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e use of h i s v e h i c l e ' s b a t t e r y and t h e jumper c a b l e s . g a s o l i n e A f t e r t h e men g o t o u t , Storm poured some of t h e . / i n t o h i s tank, g o t i n h i s c a r and waited t o t u r n t h e i g n i t i o n key. Sayers was standing between t h e v e h i c l e s , l e a n i n g under t h e hood of Storm's c a r f o r t h e purpose of priming t h e c a r b u r e t o r w i t h t h e remaining g a s i n t h e can,when a c a r d r i v e n by Kaylene Rubick s t r u c k t h e r e a r of Storm's c a r p r o p e l l i n g it forward. Sayers was pinned between t h e G a l e t t i and Storm v e h i c l e s and was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d . Kaylene Rubick was uninsured, however, Sayers, Storm and G a l e t t i had t h e following uninsured m o t o r i s t (UM) cov- erage: Insured I n s u r e r UM Limit No. of T o t a l vehicles (1) Sayers Automobile Club $25,000 2 $50,000 Insurance Co. ( 2 ) G a l e t t i Safeco Insurance $25,000 2 $50,000 (3)Storm A l l s t a t e I n s . $25,000 3 $75,000 Safeco contends Sayers was n o t "occupying" t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e under t h e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n . Safeco s u p p o r t s i t s c o n t e n t i o n w i t h numerous c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s which have construed t h e components of t h e seemingly uni- v e r s a l insurance p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n of "occupying" which by p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n was " i n o r upon o r e n t e r i n g i n t o o r a l i g h t - i n g from." The cases c i t e d by Safeco c o n t a i n a common element of p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i n s u r e d v e h i c l e a s t h e b a s i s f o r finding coverage. Safeco contends Sayers w a s n o t "oc- cupying" t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e a s a matter of law because he w a s a t l e a s t t e n f e e t from the G a l e t t i v e h i c l e a t t h e time of t h e accident. The "physical contact" t e s t f o r determining whether one i s an occupant i s n o t determinative under Montana law. This Court has developed a "reasonable connection" test. The i s s u e here i s whether Sayers' a c t i v i t i e s a t the time of t h e i n j u r y w e r e so reasonably connected t o t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e t h a t , under the law, Sayers could be s a i d t o be an occupant within t h e p o l i c y ' s meaning. Nelson v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. (1973), 163 Mont. 82, 515 P.2d 362. I n Nelson, an executor brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e decedent's automobile i n s u r e r f o r payment of f u n e r a l expenses under t h e decedent's policy. The decedent's c a r had slipped o f f an i c y country road during a ground b l i z z a r d . The temperature was e i g h t degrees below zero. After leaving her c a r , the decedent proceeded 269 f e e t along a fence and f e l l i n t o an i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h . She attempted t o crawl back, b u t died of exposure 143 f e e t from t h e c a r . The i n s u r e r refused payment of the f u n e r a l expenses because t h e decedent was not occupying the insured automobile. W e held t h e decedent was "occupying" t h e v e h i c l e and, thus, was insured under the policy. I n Nelson, t h i s Court, while n o t n e c e s s a r i l y agreeing with t h e r e s u l t , c i t e d Carta v. Providence Washington In- demnity Company (1956)r 143 Conn. 372, 122 A.2d 734, 736, and agreed with t h e Connecticut c o u r t t h a t " [ s ] ome reasonable length of time must be allowed a person, a f t e r g e t t i n g o u t , f o r t h e completion of acts which can reasonably be expected from those i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . " The standard enunciated i n Nelson i s whether the " a c t i v i t y [ i s ] reasonably c a r r i e d o u t and [ i s ] reasonably connected with t h e operation of t h e vehicle." 515 P.2d a t 364. Sayers rode i n t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e f o r the s i n g l e pur- pose of jump-starting the disabled c a r using G a l e t t i ' s b a t t e r y . H i s attempted a s s i s t a n c e was undeniably dependent upon and thus reasonably connected t o t h e G a l e t t i vehicle. A t the moment t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t s t r u c k t h e r e a r of t h e disabled v e h i c l e , Sayers had not completed t h e contemplated jump-start. Consequently, w e hold Sayers was "occupying" t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e within t h e policy d e f i n i t i o n . Safeco next contends t h a t i f Sayers i s determined t o be insured, he should n o t be allowed t o "stack" t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage under t h e p o l i c i e s f o r which he paid no premium. Safeco concedes Kemp v. A l l s t a t e Ins. Co. (1979), Mont. , 601 P.2d 20, 36 St.Rep. 1381, allowed stacking - - where the decedent had n o t been t h e policyholder. I n Kemp, t h e r e w e r e two insurance p o l i c i e s . One policy was issued t o t h e h o s t d r i v e r covering two v e h i c l e s , and a second was issued t o t h e decedent's p a r e n t s covering t h r e e v e h i c l e s . Separate premiums f o r t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t p r o t e c t i o n s were paid under the p o l i c i e s and t h e policy- holders, n o t t h e decedent, paid t h e premiums. There w e held: " I n applying Montana law, w e determine t h a t t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverages a r e t o be ' s t a c k e d ' ; t h a t is, i n p o l i c i e s of insurance which cover two o r more v e h i c l e s , i f a s e p a r a t e premium has been charged and c o l l e c t e d on each v e h i c l e f o r unin- sured v e h i c l e coverage, the insured i s e n t i t l e d t o recover under uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage sums found l e g a l l y recoverable up t o t h e aggregate sum of t h e coverages on a l l the motor v e h i c l e s s o insured. S u l l i v a n v. Doe (1972), 159 Mont. 50, 495 P.2d 193; Mountain West Farm Bureau v. Neal (I-976), 169 Mont. 317, 547 P.2d 79; Chaffee v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., e t a l . (1979) , Mont., 591 P.2d 1 1 0 2 , 36 St.Rep. 398." 601 P.2d a t 24. Safeco contends only an insured who pays t h e premiums f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l coverage should be allowed t o s t a c k , cit- ing s e v e r a l other j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t have so held. W e a r e n o t persuaded by t h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d . The r u l e of Kemp and t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n c o n t r o l . Sayers was an in- sured a s defined by the policy. Under these f a c t s t h e r e i s no reason t o d i s t i n g u i s h between persons insured and policy- holders who have a c t u a l l y paid premiums. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r stacking lies n o t i n who has paid f o r t h e e x t r a pro- t e c t i o n , b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n has been purchased. The b e n e f i t s flow t o a l l persons insured. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: