Case Title: Waters v. The Concord Group Insurance Cos.

Citation: 169 Vt. 534, 725 A.2d 923

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Waters v. The Concord Group Insurance Co. (97-462); 169 Vt. 534; 725 A.2d 923

[Filed 14-Jan-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-462

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1998

Jerald D. and Allison Waters	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.	                        }	Windsor Superior Court
                                }	
The Concord Group Insurance Co.	}
                                }	DOCKET NO. 88-2-96Wrcv	

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

       Defendant Concord Group Insurance Companies appeals from a summary
  judgment  determining that plaintiffs Jerald and Allison Waters were
  entitled to recover up to the full per  occurrence limits on their
  insurance policy as well as the policy held by their adult daughter, 
  Jennifer, who suffered severe injuries when she was struck by a motorcycle. 
  Concord Group also  appeals the court's ruling that the Waters were
  entitled to recover for their temporary loss of  consortium with Jennifer.  
  We reverse.

       The material facts are undisputed.  On July 8, 1995, an uninsured
  motorcyclist (FN1) struck eighteen-year-old Jennifer Waters as she stood
  in a store parking lot.  Jennifer's resulting medical  expenses exceeded
  $200,000.  Jennifer had uninsured motorist ("UM") coverage under separate 
  automobile insurance policies issued to her and to the Waters by Concord
  Group.  Both policies  at issue contained a "Split UM Limits Endorsement." 
  Jennifer's policy provided UM coverage  in split limits not to exceed
  $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence.   The Waters' policy 
  provided UM coverage in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per person and
  $300,000 per  occurrence.  The policies' combined maximum UM coverage was
  $125,000 per person, and  $350,000 per occurrence. 

       Following the accident, Concord Group paid Jennifer $125,000, the
  total UM coverage  available under the two policies for bodily injuries
  suffered by one person.  The Waters then filed  this action for declaratory
  judgment, alleging that they were entitled to recover for their loss of 
  consortium with Jennifer up to the per occurrence limits of the policies,
  or $350,000.  The parties  filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 
  Following a hearing, the court granted the Waters'  motion.  The court
  concluded that a policy endorsement which purported to limit UM coverage 
  to the maximum amount available for injury per person, in this case
  $125,000, was ambiguous  and therefore not effective.  The court further
  ruled that the Waters were entitled to recover for  their loss of
  consortium with Jennifer.  This appeal followed.

       Before addressing the substantive issues on appeal, we first consider
  the appropriate  standard of review.  Generally, a trial court's findings
  will not be disturbed unless they are clearly  erroneous.  See V.R.C.P.
  52(a)(2); Gannon v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 162 Vt. 465, 469,