Title: Hartford Accident v. Novak
Citation: 520 P.2d 1368, 83 Wash. 2d 576
Docket Number: 43028
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 1974

83 Wn.2d 576 (1974) 520 P.2d 1368 HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent, v. STANLEY NOVAK et al., Appellants. No. 43028. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. April 4, 1974. McGavick &amp; Felker, by Robert S. Felker, for appellants. F. Ross Burgess and Lycette, Diamond &amp; Sylvester, by Edwin J. Snook, for respondent. Jack J. Ackerman, amicus curiae. HUNTER, J. This case involves a complaint for declaratory judgment filed by the plaintiff (respondent), Hartford Accident Indemnity Company, against the defendants (appellants), Stanley and Jane Doe Novak, concerning the coverage and rights of the defendants under an "uninsured motorist" portion of an insurance policy with the plaintiff. *577 The defendants appeal from an order by the trial court granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On December 11, 1970, the defendants were involved in an automobile accident with a second vehicle, which struck the defendants' vehicle as the second vehicle swerved to avoid colliding with another third vehicle, which had unexpectedly pulled out into the lane of traffic. At the time of the accident the third vehicle failed to make any "physical contact" with either the second vehicle or the defendants' vehicle, but rather fled the scene without leaving any means of identification available to anyone involved. The accident was immediately investigated by the Washington State Patrol. The drivers and witnesses in both the defendants' vehicle and the second vehicle maintained without question that the accident was the unavoidable result of the actions of an unknown and unidentifiable vehicle which had fled the scene without a scratch. No accident report was ever filed by the fleeing driver, and neither the plaintiff, which insures the defendants, nor the insurer for the second vehicle, had received any correspondence from any insurance company regarding the role of the third vehicle in this accident. As a result of the accident, the defendants allegedly received certain injuries asserted to have been proximately caused by the operation of the hit-and-run vehicle, and filed a demand with the American Arbitration Association on August 16, 1972, for the matter to be arbitrated. The section of the insurance policy upon which the defendants relied in asserting a right to arbitrate provides as follows: (Italics ours.) Subsequent to the filing of the defendants' demand for arbitration, the plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the Superior Court for Pierce County, seeking a judgment declaring that no coverage was available under the "uninsured motorist" provisions of their policy for the defendants and that the plaintiff should not have to arbitrate the matter. Section 3, subdivision 2 of the insurance contract, defines "uninsured automobile" as follows: The insurance policy further defines a "hit-and-run automobile" as follows: (Italics ours.) After considering the language of the sections of the insurance policy referring to arbitration and uninsured motorist coverage, the trial judge, upon motion by the plaintiff, entered an order staying the arbitration proceedings. Subsequently, on February 20, 1973, the trial judge entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding: (1) that the plaintiff had no coverage under *579 the insurance policy for the defendants as a result of the accident; and (2) that the plaintiff need not arbitrate the matter in question with the defendants through the American Arbitration Association. Thereafter, the defendants took this appeal. The primary issue in this case is whether the defendants would be covered under the uninsured motorist provision of their insurance policy, should it be determined that the injuries or damages sustained by the defendants were proximately caused by a hit-and-run vehicle, which failed to make physical contact with the vehicle of the insured. This issue was first considered by this court under a different factual situation in Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 70 Wn.2d 587, 424 P.2d 648 (1967). In that case the same limiting language was in the policy requiring physical contact by the hit-and-run vehicle with the vehicle of the insured to afford coverage. Under the facts, however, the hit-and-run vehicle did not collide with the car of the insured, but struck a second car that was propelled into the vehicle of the insured. We considered the diverse views on the issue of whether physical contact was required under decisions in the states of New York and California, and stated on page 589: On pages 590-91, we then stated the purpose of the uninsured motorist clause, the basis for the physical contact requirement, and the extent to which it should be applied: (Italics ours.) Subsequent to the above decision, in the following year our legislature, apparently having in mind our enunciations in Johnson, enacted the uninsured motorist act. RCW 48.22.030 provides as follows: (Italics ours.) It is significant in the above statute that the legislature omitted the limitation of "physical contact" by hit-and-run motor vehicles. *581 In Touchette v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Wn.2d 327, 332, 494 P.2d 479 (1972), we stated in clear and concise language the purpose of the above enactment: We there further stated on pages 332-33: (Citations omitted.) We cited therefrom the following key and controlling language: (Italics ours.) [1] We believe it is apparent that the legislature, by its enactment of RCW 48.22.030, intended to afford protection to an insured for injuries or damages proximately caused by a hit-and-run vehicle, irrespective of its actual physical contact with the vehicle of the insured. The plaintiff insurance company in this case was bound to follow the mandate of our statute, and the limiting language in the policy to the contrary, requiring physical contact by the hit-and-run vehicle to afford the defendants coverage, is void and contrary to the public policy of this state. We therefore hold that the defendants, under their insurance policy with the plaintiff, were covered for injuries and damages which may have resulted from the operation of the hit-and-run vehicle. The plaintiff has cited various cases in support of its contention that "physical contact" is required to afford uninsured motorist coverage in the case of injuries or damages sustained from a hit-and-run vehicle. We find in those cases so holding that in most instances the statute of that state, requiring uninsured motorist coverage, also contains the "physical contact" limitation in the case of injuries or damages caused by a hit-and-run vehicle. As to other cases cited, holding contrary to our views expressed herein, we are not inclined to follow. We believe the Florida court in Brown v. Progressive Mut. Ins. Co., 249 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1971), contains the better reasoning and the more enlightened view consistent with the philosophy of our previous decisions, which we adopt. In that case the insured sustained injuries and damages from a hit-and-run vehicle which was not known to have made "physical contact" with the vehicle of the insured as required for coverage by the policy. The statute in the state of Florida, directing uninsured motorist coverage, was similar to our statute and *583 contained no "physical contact" provision in order to afford recovery for injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle. That court stated on page 430: (Italics ours.) *584 We also agree with the reasoning of the Arizona Court of Appeals in Mazon v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 13 Ariz. App. 298, 475 P.2d 957 (1971). (Arizona also has an uninsured motorist statute similar to our state statute, which does not require physical contact for injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle, to come within the uninsured motorist coverage.) That court stated on pages 300-301: [2] The plaintiff further argues that the literal meaning of the term "hit-and-run" in RCW 48.22.030 requires a hitting or physical contact of some sort in order for uninsured motorist protection to be afforded an insured, and cites cases to support this contention. Ely v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 268 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. App. 1971), and Prosk v. Allstate Ins. Co., 82 Ill. App.2d 457, 226 N.E.2d 498 (1967). We disagree with this contention and the reasoning of those cases. The phrase "hit-and-run" cannot be considered in isolation; it must be considered in context with the totality and purpose of the enactment. To give the term "hit-and-run vehicle" its literal meaning as suggested by the plaintiff would be inconsistent with the broad public policy grounds and purpose set forth in Touchette, of affording protection to the public from the inability to recover compensation for injuries and damages caused by the users of the highway. Injuries sustained as a result of the actions of an unidentified driver who flees from the scene of an accident without a scratch are just as real and severe as those caused by an unidentified driver of a car who runs from the accident where physical contact is involved. Moreover, the use of the term "hit-and-run" in this state, as well as in most other jurisdictions, is synonymous with a car involved in an accident causing damages where the driver flees from the scene. The requirement of physical contact is not to provide meaning to the term "hit-and-run," but rather is for the purpose of preventing the possible filing of fraudulent claims, as heretofore discussed in this opinion. If the literal meaning is given to the term "hit-and-run," then the requirement for physical contact provisions would be superfluous. *586 [3] The defendants have raised the issue as to whether this entire case should be submitted to arbitration as indicated in the policy. The answer to this question is contained in a lengthy annotation in 29 A.L.R.3d 328, § 7, at 346 (1970). The authorities are uniform that the question of coverage is not an issue for arbitration, and we so hold. However, the authorities are equally clear that the issue of liability and injuries and damages sustained are properly matters for arbitration where the policy so provides. In summary, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. The defendants are covered under the uninsured motorist provision of their policy. The case is remanded to the trial court with direction that the parties be afforded arbitration under the terms of the policy on the issue of liability, and for injuries and damages sustained by the defendants by reason of the asserted negligent operation of the hit-and-run vehicle. It is so ordered. HALE, C.J., and FINLEY, ROSELLINI, HAMILTON, STAFFORD, WRIGHT, UTTER, and BRACHTENBACH, JJ., concur. [1] This case was later vacated by the Arizona Supreme Court, Mazon v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 107 Ariz. 601, 491 P.2d 455 (1972), specifically on grounds other than the failure of physical contact by the offending vehicle, which does not affect the impact of the above reasoning.