Opinion ID: 2173465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion clause in light of the statutory provision respecting subrogation rights

Text: Allstate argues that the Legislature could not have intended outlawing the no-consent-to-settlement clause in the instant case where Commercial settled with the appellant under the uninsured vehicle coverage of the Brissette policy, since 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2902(4) provides that [i]n the event of payment to any person under uninsured vehicle coverage, and subject to the terms of such coverage, to the extent of such payment the insurer shall be entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or recovery from any person legally responsible for the bodily injury as to which such payment was made, and to amounts recoverable from the assets of the insolvent insurer of the other motor vehicle. (Emphasis added) The same argument is made in favor of the alleged validity of the reduction clause of the policy, which reads that [a]ny amount payable under the terms of this coverage because of bodily injury sustained in an accident by a person who is an insured under this coverage shall be reduced by (1) all sums paid on account of such bodily injury by or on behalf of (i) the owner or operator of the uninsured automobile and (ii) any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for such bodily injury including all sums paid under the Bodily Injury Liability Coverage of the policy, . . . . (Emphasis supplied) Allstate claims that the statutory protective legislation of subrogation rights under the uninsured vehicle coverage impliedly indicates legislative recognition that the insurer may contract to exclude coverage or provide for reduction of the amount due, if the insured without consent settles with, or receives payment from or on behalf of, the uninsured motorist or any other person or organization jointly or severally liable with the uninsured motorist for the bodily injury sustained in the accident. Any other construction, it asserts, would frustrate the exercise of its right of subrogation. We disagree. We concede that the insurer's purpose in having in the policy the no-consent-to-settlement exclusion clause and the provision for reducing the insurer's obligation by all sums paid on account of the bodily injury sustained in the accident from other sources is the protection of the insurer's potential right to subrogation against persons who may be legally liable therefor. But 24-A, M.R.S.A., § 2902(4) only assures to the insurer, once it has made payment under the uninsured vehicle coverage, entitlement or subrogation rights to the proceeds of any settlement or recovery from any person legally responsible for the bodily injury as to which such payment was made, and to amounts recoverable from the assets of the insolvent insurer of the other motor vehicle. Both the no-consent-to-settlement exclusion and the offset-reduction clauses of the Allstate-Wescott policy attempt to extend the reach of its statutory subrogation rights to include the proceeds of any settlement or recovery from not only any person but also from any organization legally responsible for the bodily injury as to which payment was made. The term organization was obviously intended to cover the insurance outfit or unit which made the settlement payment. The Maine statute does not, as the Louisiana statute does, specifically give subrogation rights against the organization legally responsible for the bodily injury for which payment was made. See Hebert v. Green, 311 So.2d 223, 228 (La.1975). The statute does, however, make special mention of subrogation rights to amounts recoverable from the assets of the insolvent insurer of the other motor vehicle. It would have been very easy for the Legislature, if it intended to extend subrogation rights to proceeds from insurance organizations obligated by contract to pay for persons legally responsible for the bodily injury, to use appropriate language granting subrogation rights generally to amounts recoverable from any insurer of the other motor vehicle. The maxim-expressio unius est exclusio alteriusis well recognized in Maine as in other states. It is a handy tool to be used at times in ascertaining the intention of the lawmaking body. Cf. Whorff, Petr. v. Johnson, 143 Me. 198, 58 A.2d 553 (1948). The dominant purpose of the mandatory uninsured vehicle coverage statute is to provide a source for the collection by the insured victim of an accident of all sums which he is legally entitled to recover as damages against the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. In view of the fact that this remedial statute must be construed liberally in favor of the insured victim and strictly against the insurer, that part of the statute granting subsidiary rights of subrogation to the insurer must be given that narrow interpretation which favors full satisfaction by the insured victim of his damages to which he is legally entitled to recover from the owners or operators of the uninsured vehicle before the right of subrogation attaches. Both clauses of the Allstate-Wescott policythe no-consent-to-settlement exclusion clause and the offset-reduction conditionhave the effect of chilling any settlements with joint tort-feasors and their insurers and put in that respect a frustrating restriction upon the mandatory coverage under the statute, and, for that reason, are void and unenforceable. See Craig v. Iowa Kemper Mut. Ins. Co., 565 S.W.2d 716 (Mo.App.1978); White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 361 F.2d 785 (4th Cir. 1966).