Title: Landry v. Dairyland Insurance Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Landry v. Dairyland Insurance Co.  (96-385); 166 Vt. 634; 701 A.2d 1035

[Filed 2-Jul-1997]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-385

                              APRIL TERM, 1997

Scott Landry, Administrator of the    }   APPEALED FROM:
Estate of Robb E. Landry              }
                                      }
     v.                               }     Washington Superior Court
                                      }
Dairyland Insurance Company           }
                                      }     DOCKET NO. S0325-93WnC

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

       Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment ruling that his insurance
  policy's uninsured motorist provision does not cover intentional harm by an
  uninsured motorist.  We hold that the conduct at issue was not an
  "accident" under that provision, and accordingly, affirm the decision
  below.

       The parties have stipulated to the following facts.  On June 19, 1990,
  plaintiff and his brother were driving in plaintiff's Chevette, while James
  Darrow and another man drove in Darrow's van.  A dispute arose between the
  occupants of the two vehicles as they drove on Interstate 89 and then on
  U.S. Route 2.  Darrow pulled to the side of the road and stood beside his
  vehicle.  He then intentionally threw a tire iron at plaintiff's car as it
  passed; the tire iron struck plaintiff's brother in the head, killing him.

       Defendant Dairyland Insurance Company had issued plaintiff an
  insurance policy that included uninsured motorist coverage, and plaintiff's
  brother was a covered person under that policy.  Darrow had no insurance. 
  Plaintiff, as administrator of his brother's estate, brought this action
  for compensation under the uninsured motorist provision of his Dairyland
  policy.

       This provision states that Dairyland will "pay damages which a covered
  person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an
  uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury: (1) Sustained by a
  covered person; and (2) Caused by an accident," where such damages "arise
  out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured motor vehicle."

       Plaintiff maintains that Darrow's intentionally throwing the tire iron
  qualifies as an "accident" under his insurance policy.  We disagree.  We
  construe insurance contracts according to their terms and the parties'
  intent as shown by those terms.  Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Central Vt. Ry.,
  133 Vt. 292, 295,