Opinion ID: 878792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Issue Number 5: Consent of the insured vis a vis uninsured motorist coverage.

Text: State Farm contends that its uninsured motorist provision on the truck does not cover the accident because the vehicle was used without the owner's consent and it was concurrently insured under liability coverage of the policy. State Farm claims an exclusion in its policy language. [Applicable uninsured motorist provision]: An uninsured motor vehicle does not include a land motor vehicle: 1. insured under the liability coverage of this policy; ... (Emphasis added.) [Insured for liability coverage]: Insured means: ... [You, your spouse, relatives of the first person named in the declaration] ... 4. any other person while using such a car if its use is within the scope of consent of you or your spouse. (Emphasis added.) This Court does not support provisions placed on uninsured motorist coverage which restrict or thwart available liability coverage that the insured would be entitled to in an accident. The purpose of the statute is to protect completely, those willing to accept its protection, from all harm, whatever their status  passenger, driver, pedestrian  at the time of injury, produced by uninsured motorists. The only restrictions are that the plaintiff must be an insured, the defendant motorist uninsured, and that plaintiff be legally entitled to recover. Jacobson v. Implement Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. (Mont. 1982), 640 P.2d 908, 911, 39 St.Rep. 325, 328, citing Elledge v. Warren (La. App. 1972), 263 So.2d 912. Plaintiff Guiberson is an insured; he was in the bed of the beer truck pursuing his employer's interest in attempting to prevent its disappearing with mental patients. His use was within the scope of consent of Roach & Smith, Inc. The defendant Tintinger was an uninsured motorist. Consent to drive the beer truck is not only inapplicable to the defendant as an uninsured, but also irrelevant. Plaintiff is legally entitled to recover damages pursuant to a judgment rendered according to a jury verdict. The language of the uninsured motorist provision is nullified where it gives less coverage for acts of the uninsured than it would to the insured, thus defeating the purpose of providing such coverage. We hold that State Farm's uninsured motorist coverage was applicable to these facts and that the plaintiff is entitled to the full coverage available to the insured under the policy.