Court Opinion

ID: 9686232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:34:52.454936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:16.244512
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
The opinion in this case hinges on an interpretation of the statutes of Nebraska dealing with uninsured motorists and consequent insurers liability. It holds, in substance, that section 60-509.01, R. R. S. 1943, clearly evidences a legislative intention to leave unlimited the amount that may be recovered under uninsured motorist provisions despite restrictions in affected insurance policies limiting recovery.
As indicated in the opinion of Spencer, J., there is a wide divergence of opinion on this subject among the various courts. See Annotation, 28 A. L. R. 3d 551. In the present instance, where two> different insurance policies, issued by different companies, are involved,' it is sought to justify the result on the theory that separate premiums were paid for uninsured motorist coverage in each policy. ' The argument is unsound. The insured paid in each instance, not for an unlimited coverage, but for coverage subject to the “other insurance” provisions contained in the policies.
The only justification for permitting recovery in the present instance is that the statute requires it. I submit that it does not. Section 60-509.01, R. R. S. 1943, was adopted in 1963. It places a minimum on the amount of uninsured motorist coverage to be made available by insurers, but is silent as to a maximum. Similar statutes have resulted in the divergent opinions’ referred to above. This is not, however, the only Nebraska statute dealing with the subject. In 1967, sections 60-509.02 and 60-509.03, R. R. S. 1943, were adopted. The first section provides that when a tort-feasor’s insurance company becomes insolvent such ' tort-feasor shall be deemed am uninsured motorist. The second' síéction provides that if the injured party recovers from a second insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of' the *219statute' and the insurance contract, such second insurer shall be subrogated to the claim of the insured, against the insolvent insurer. In other words, if the policy issued by the second insurer was for the statutorily required amount of $10,000, that is all the insured can recover. He cannot also recover a portion of his claim against the insolvent company regardless of the amount of. damage he has sustained.
. The 1967 statutes are part of the uninsured motorist act. They give a clear indication of the legislative intent on the point at issue. Had it been intended to permit recovery from two or more. insurers in excess of the statutorily required $10,000 sum and in disregard, of ‘‘.other. insurance” provisions contained in the policy, section 60-509.03, R. R. S. 1943, would never have been adopted. Under the interpretation placed on our statutes in the majority opinion, an insured dealing with an insolvent insurer can recover from only one insurer, but all others can recover from two insurers. The result is illogical and definitely not a correct interpretation of legislative intent. It promotes discrimination and represents an interpretation specifically prohibited by legislative act in California and some other states.