Court Opinion

ID: 9764307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:18:34.787799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.678887
License: Public Domain

*744Mr. Justice Joslin, concurring.
I join the court’s opinion. I write separately, however, to emphasize my view that G.L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §27-7-2.1 should not be read as mandating that an uninsured motorist provision of an automobile liability policy covering one owned motor vehicle protect the named insured while in another owned, but uninsured, motor vehicle. Yet, invalidation of clause (p) of the York policy will not only produce the anomalous result, but also, by permitting the same premium to be charged for uninsured motorist coverage irrespective of the number of vehicles owned, will effectively compel an insured owning a single automobile to partially subsidize uninsured motorist coverage for multi-car owners. That is the kind of unreasonable and unjust result that the Legislature should not be presumed to have intended. See Wilkinson v. Harrington, 104 R.I. 224, 239, 243 A.2d 745, 753 (1968); Genereux v. Pelosi, 96 R.I. 452, 457-58, 192 A.2d 630, 633 (1963).