Opinion ID: 1969101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Status of the Cab.

Text: London argues that the taxi was not an uninsured vehicle because, at the time of the collision, the limits set forth in the Liberty Mutual policy were in compliance with the statutes that govern the operation of taxicabs and other public motor vehicles in this state. G.L. 1956, § 39-14-18 [2] provided that the owner of such a vehicle was required to obtain a liability insurance policy containing bodily injury limits of $5,000/10,000. The defendant argues that the cab's status should be determined by the taxicab statute rather than the statutes governing the issuance of uninsured motorists insurance coverage. We disagree. Section 39-14-18 had its inception in 1929 when the General Assembly adopted P.L. 1929, chap. 1423. This statute requires a taxicab owner to procure a liability policy. It was enacted at a time when an automobile was considered as a luxury rather than as a necessity. In those days nobody foresaw the social and economic havoc that has been wrought by the presence on our highways of the uninsured motorist. The legislation requiring automobile insurance companies doing business in this state to offer a willing motorist the opportunity to recover damages for his bodily injuries, which are solely attributable to the negligence of the uninsured motorist, first appeared on the statute books of this state in 1962. [3] While both statutes provide compensation for bodily injury sustained as the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, they serve different purposes. Uninsured motorists insurance is not liability insurance. It does not undertake to protect the insured against liability he may incur to others but rather it compensates him for a loss caused by a specific class of tort-feasors  the uninsured. Kirouac v. Healey, 104 N.H. 157, 181 A.2d 634. On the other hand, the insurance required by the taxicab statute affords the insured protection, not compensation. The statute which gives an opportunity to be compensated for injuries caused by the negligent operation of an uninsured motor vehicle is today known and cited as G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 27-7-2.1. [4] We have previously described the uninsured automobile encompassed by § 27-7-2.1 as being a motor vehicle which at the time of the collision is not covered by a liability policy in the minimum limits mandated by § 31-31-7. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fusco, 101 R.I. 350, 223 A.2d 447. The taxi that struck Alice's car is just such a vehicle. It would be completely unrealistic to hold that the Legislature, when it permitted the members of the public to obtain uninsured motorists coverage, would deny them the benefits due thereunder if the damages were caused by an underinsured vehicle such as the taxi insured by Liberty Mutual. This is in accord with the principle that statutes which are not inconsistent with one another and which relate to the same subject matter should be considered together so that they will harmonize with each other and be consistent with their general object and scope even though they contain no reference to one another and were passed at different times. Providence Teachers Union v. School Committee, 108 R.I. 444, 276 A.2d 762. The plaintiff's insurer also alleges that in the Superior Court there was a failure of proof on the issue of whether the cab was an uninsured motor vehicle. This assertion is based on the theory that it was up to plaintiff to show that the cab had no other liability insurance over and above that supplied by Liberty Mutual which might be applicable to the February 1965 rear-end collision. We find this argument to be devoid of any merit. When plaintiff introduced Liberty Mutual's policy, she had established her right to proceed against her insurer. Thereafter, it became London's burden to show that there was other insurance applicable to the cab which, when added to Liberty Mutual's $5,000, would take the cab out of the uninsured classification.