Opinion ID: 1121510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: availability of step-down coverage

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the Utah Insurance Code prohibits an insurer from providing step-down coverage for permissive users. They note that the Code sets forth two instances where step-down coverage is allowed and claim that the legislature has thus declared by implication that step-down coverage is not permissible in any other circumstance. We reject this argument. Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-303 provides: (2) A policy containing motor vehicle liability coverage ... may: ...; (c) if the policy is issued to a person other than a motor vehicle business, limit the coverage afforded to a motor vehicle business or its officers, agents, or employees to the minimum limits under Section 31A-22-304, and to those instances when there is no other valid and collectible insurance with at least those limits, whether the other insurance is primary, excess, or contingent; and (d) if issued to a motor vehicle business, restrict coverage afforded to anyone other than the motor vehicle business or its officers, agents, or employees to the minimum limits under Section 31A-22-304, and to those instances when there is no other valid and collectible insurance with at least those limits, whether the other insurance is primary, excess, or contingent. Plaintiffs contend that because these subsections specifically allow step-down coverage in connection with motor vehicle businesses, they implicitly prohibit step-down coverage in all other situations. Plaintiffs essentially argue the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that is, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Black's Law Dictionary 521 (5th ed. 1979). But this principle is only an aid to statutory interpretation; it is not a rule of law, and it has only limited application. [6] Rio Grande Motor Way, Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 445 P.2d 990, 992 (Utah 1968). A court's primary responsibility in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, American Coal Co. v. Sandstrom, 689 P.2d 1, 3 (Utah 1984), and rules of statutory interpretation exist only to assist in this determination. Stone v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 503, 183 Cal.Rptr. 647, 659 n. 10, 646 P.2d 809, 821 n. 10 (1982). The inclusion of specific matter in a statute implies the exclusion of something else only where in the natural association of ideas the contrast between a specific subject matter which is expressed and one which is not mentioned leads to an inference that the latter was not intended to be included within the statute. 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 333, at 670 (1953). We conclude that the legislature did not intend to limit step-down coverage to motor vehicle businesses. First, subsections (2)(c) and (d) do more than merely allow step-down coverage; these provisions also allow certain policies to limit coverage to those instances where no other valid and collectible insurance is available. Moreover, the concepts of motor vehicle businesses and permissive users are not so closely related that the specific authorization of step-down coverage for the former reveals an intent to prohibit such coverage for the latter. The provisions relating to motor vehicle businesses were intended to address a specific concern, not to set forth a rule of general applicability. That is, the legislature enacted these provisions to clarify what sort of coverage is allowed for motor vehicle businesses, not to list all of the circumstances in which an insurer may provide step-down coverage. Indeed, application of plaintiffs' argument to a different part of section 31A-22-303 suggests that the legislature specifically intended to allow reduced coverage for permissive users. Subsection (1)(b)(i) provides that an owner's liability policy must insure (1) the person named in the policy, (2) any other person using a named vehicle with the insured's permission, and (3) anyone related to the insured and living in his or her household. Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-303(1)(b)(i). Subsection (1)(c) then provides that the policy must insure persons related to the named insured ... to the same extent as the named insured. Id. § 31A-22-303(1)(c). The legislature thus created two categories of drivers to be covered in addition to the named insured: relatives and permissive users. It then specifically provided that one of these groups, relatives, must be covered to the same extent as the named insured. This suggests that equal coverage is not required for the other group, permissive users. We therefore hold that the statute does not prohibit insurers from providing step-down coverage for permissive users, as long as the coverage satisfies the statutory minimums set forth in section 31A-22-304.