Court Opinion

ID: 9615287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:33:39.153405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:44.472716
License: Public Domain

LEVINSON, Justice.
This case calls upon us to revisit National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Olson, 69 Haw. 559, 751 P.2d 666 (1988), in order to clarify further the nature and scope of uninsured motorist (UM) insurance coverage under applicable Hawaii law. The plaintiff-appellant Jeanette Dawes, individually and as special administrator of the estate of her daughter, Elizabeth Jean Bockhorn, deceased, has appealed from the circuit court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendant-appellee First Insurance Company of Hawaii, Limited (FICH) and denying Dawes’s cross-motion for summary judgment (order). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand for the entry of summary judgment in favor of Dawes.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts material to the present appeal are not in dispute. On October 21, 1988, Eric L. Shimp, Bockhorn, and two of their mutual female friends spent the afternoon sand boarding and taking in the sun at Kua Bay Beach, north of the Kona Airport on the island of Hawaii. Deposition of Eric Shimp (Shimp deposition), conducted on April 21, 1989, at 8-9. Shimp had driven the group to the beach in an International Travel All (the insured vehicle), a “Jeep Cherokee” style automobile owned by Shimp’s father and insured under a general automobile liability insurance policy, Policy No. AP 3154087, issued by FICH (the FICH auto policy). Id. at 29-30; affidavit of Elizabeth Nelander.
Sometime between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m., the group left the beach in the insured vehicle— Shimp driving and Bockhorn and the other women riding as passengers—to return to Kona, where Bockhorn resided. Shimp deposition at 8, 10-11. As Shimp proceeded south on the Queen Ka’ahumanu Highway, he noticed that the temperature gauge of the insured vehicle was abnormally high. Id. at 11. The gauge continued to rise, so Shimp slowed the insured vehicle to a stop and parked it approximately twenty feet off the ocean-side edge of the highway. Id. at 11-12. While the three women remained in the insured vehicle, Shimp looked under the hood and saw that “steam was coming out everywhere.” Id. at 12. Shimp decided to pour some water into the radiator from a five-gallon jug kept in the insured vehicle for emergencies, but “[w]hen [he] poured the water in, [he] noticed it was coming out just as fast as [he] was putting it in.” Id. Accordingly, Shimp concluded that “we weren’t going to use the vehicle to go any further” because “the plug where you drain the radiator had blown out.” Id. For approximately fifteen minutes, Shimp attempted unsuccessfully to repair the insured vehicle. Id. at 14.
At that point, according to Shimp’s uncon-troverted testimony,
I discussed with all the parties involved what we should do. Should we wait for a police officer or should I go up to the airport, since it was in sight, and they would wait there, or if we should all walk. We were seriously considering waiting for about a half an hour until a police officer came by, and one drove by and didn’t stop. That’s when the car was steaming, and he did not stop.
So then I discussed further with the girls what to do, and they came to the decision, all of us came to the decision to walk to the airport.
Id. at 13. The decision was motivated by the fact that one police officer had already driven by the disabled insured vehicle without stopping; “[t]hat kind of made our mind up that if he’s not going to stop, there’s probably not going to be another one coming by for a while any ways.” Id.
The group’s objective in proceeding on foot to the airport was to obtain alternative transportation and repair assistance. Order at 3; affidavit of Eric L. Shimp at 2. At about 5:30 p.m., after walking alongside the shoulder of the highway—well clear of the pavement—for twenty to twenty-five minutes and having traveled approximately one mile from the insured vehicle, Shimp heard “a very loud disturbing sound” coming from behind. *120Shimp deposition at 11, 14-16, 24. Shimp turned toward the sound in time to see Bock-horn, who was to his immediate left on the highway side, struck by a maroon Honda Accord that was moving “at highway speed.” Id. at 15-17, 24; exhibit “1” attached to the Shimp deposition. Bockhorn was thrown onto the Accord as it proceeded down the highway; she was carried for approximately the length of a football field before she fell off. Id. at 23-24.
Bockhorn sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene of the accident. Order at 2; Shimp deposition at 25-28. The Honda Accord was uninsured. Order at 2. Apparently, the driver was uninsured as well.
As we have noted, at the time of the events described above, the insured vehicle was covered by the FICH auto policy issued to Shimp’s father. The “Insuring Agreement” of Part C-l—entitled “Uninsured Motorists Coverage”—provided in relevant part:
[FICH] will pay damages which a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury:
1. Sustained by a covered person; and
2. Caused by an accident.
The owner’s or operator’s liability for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.
[[Image here]]
“Covered person” as used in this Part means:
1. [The named insured, i.e., Shimp’s father] or any family member.
2. Any other person occupying your covered auto.
3. Any person [e.g., the administrator of a decedent’s estate, or a minor claimant’s “next friend”] for damages that person is entitled to recover because of bodily injury to which this coverage applies sustained by a person described in 1. or 2. above.
“Uninsured motor vehicle” means a land motor vehicle or trailer of any type:
1. To which no bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident.
[[Image here]]
3.Which is a hit and run vehicle whose operator or owner cannot be identified and which hits:
a. [the named insured] or any family member;
b. a vehicle which [the named insured] or any family member are occupying; or
c. [the named insured’s] covered auto.
(Underscoring added and bold in original.) The general “definitions” section of the FICH auto policy defined “family member” to mean “a person related to [the named insured] by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of [the named insured’s] household.” “Occupying” was defined to mean “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off.” It is undisputed that the insured vehicle was a “covered auto” of the named insured and that Shimp was a “family member”.
At some point after Bockhorn’s death, Dawes asserted a claim against FICH for UM benefits, as delineated in the FICH auto policy, for injuries and damages arising from the October 21,1988 accident. FICH denied Dawes’s claim.
On May 16, 1990, Dawes filed a timely complaint in the Third Circuit Court for declaratory judgment against FICH, in which she sought a declaration that the FICH auto policy’s UM coverage was available to her to cover damages resulting from the October 21, 1988 accident. FICH answered the complaint on June 25, 1990 and asserted a.counterclaim for declaratory judgment against Dawes, in which it sought, inter alia, a declaration that “[FICH] has no obligation to pay [UM] benefits to [Dawes] for any loss or injury arising from the October 21, 1988 ... accident.”
On April 10,1991, FICH moved the circuit court for an order granting summary judgment in its favor “declaring that [Dawes] is not entitled to [UM] benefits under the subject policy issued by [FICH], on the ground that [Dawes’s] decedent, ... Bockhorn, was not a ‘covered person’ under the [UM] provisions of the ... policy at the time she sus*121tained fatal injuries on October 21, 1988.” On May 15, 1991, Dawes filed a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking the converse relief, namely, an order declaring that Bock-horn was a “covered person” under the FICH auto policy at the time of the accident.
The two motions came on for hearing on May 21,1991. Counsel for Dawes and FICH agreed that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the case was ripe for summary judgment in favor of one party or the other. 5/21/91 Tr. at 3, 25. The hearing consisted almost exclusively of a thorough and probing colloquy between the circuit court and the parties regarding the proper application of Olson, supra, to the undisputed facts of the case, at the end of which the circuit court took the matter under advisement.
On June 5, 1991, the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of FICH and against Dawes on the basis that “[a]t the time of the subject aecident[,] Elizabeth Bockhom was not occupying the insured vehicle, was not in the immediate proximity of the insured vehicle[,] and was not engaged in maintenance or use of the insured vehicle.”
Dawes filed a timely notice of appeal on July 1, 1991.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal, an award of summary judgment is reviewed under the same standard applied by the trial courts. Under Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata, 75 Haw. 250, 258, 861 P.2d 1, 6 (1993) (citing Gossinger v. Association of Apartment Owners of The Regency Ala Wai, 73 Haw. 412, 417, 835 P.2d 627, 630 (1992)).
Sol v. AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co., 76 Hawai'i 304, 306, 875 P.2d 921, 923, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 353, 877 P.2d 890 (1994); see also Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. v. First Ins. Co. of Hawai'i, Ltd., 76 Hawai'i 277, 287, 875 P.2d 894, 904 (1994) (citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
A. General Legal Principles, Controlling Hawai'i Statutes, And The Plain Language Of The FICH Policy
We begin our analysis with the observation that “‘liability insurers have the same rights as individuals to limit their liability, and to impose whatever conditions they please on their obligation, provided they are not in contravention of statutory inhibitions or public policy.’ ” First Ins. Co. of Hawai'i, Inc. v. State, 66 Haw. 413, 423, 665 P.2d 648, 655 (1983) (quoting 6B Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4255, at 40 (1979) [hereafter Appleman]). As such, “[insurance] policies are subject to the general rules of contract construction; the terms of the policy should be interpreted according to their plain, ordinary, and accepted sense in common speech unless it appears from the policy that a different meaning is intended[.]” Id. at 423-24, 665 P.2d at 655 (citations omitted). Moreover, “[every] insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy[.]” Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 431:10-237 (1987 Spec. Pamphlet); see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fermahin, 73 Haw. 552, 556, 836 P.2d 1074, 1077 (1992); Smith v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 72 Haw. 531, 534, 827 P.2d 635, 636 (1992).
Nevertheless, adherence to the plain language and literal meaning of insurance contract provisions is not without limitation. We have acknowledged that “[b]ecause insurance policies are contracts of adhesion and are premised on standard forms prepared by the insurer’s attorneys, we have long subscribed to the principle that they must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and [any] ambiguities [must be] resolved against the insurer.” Sturla, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 67 Haw. 203, 209, 684 P.2d 960, 964 (1984) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (cited with approval in Fermahin, 73 Haw. at 556, 836 P.2d at 1077). “Put another way, the rule is that policies are to be construed in accord with the reasonable expectations of a layperson.” Id. In addition, “[insurance] policies are governed by statutory requirements in force *122and effect at the time such policies are written. ... Such provisions are read into each policy issued thereunder [] and become a part of the contract with full binding effect upon each party.” AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co., Inc. v. Estate of Caraang, 74 Haw. 620, 633, 851 P.2d 321, 328 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).1 Consequently, “[w]hen the terms of an insurance contract are in conflict with statutory language, the statute must take precedence over the terms of the contract.” Sol, 76 Hawai'i at 307, 875 P.2d at 924; see also Methven-Abreu v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd., 73 Haw. 385, 395-96, 834 P.2d 279, 285, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 838 P.2d 860 (1992); Olson, 69 Haw. at 563-64, 751 P.2d 666, 669 (1988); Walton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 55 Haw. 326, 328, 518 P.2d 1399, 1400-01 (1974); Columbia Casualty Co. v. Hoohuli, 50 Haw. 212, 214-15, 437 P.2d 99, 102 (1968).
As of October 21, 1988, UM coverage under the FICH auto policy was primarily governed by the provisions of two Hawaii statutes. The first, HRS § 431:10-213 (1987 Spec. Pamphlet),2 provided in relevant part:
Automobile liability; coverage for damage by uninsured or underinsured motorist, (a) No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this State unless the policy provides coverage for the protection of the persons insured who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles.3
[[Image here]]
The second, HRS § 431:100-301 (1987 Spec. Pamphlet),4 provided in relevant part:
Required motor vehicle policy coverage.
[[Image here]]
(b) A motor vehicle insurance policy shall include:
[[Image here]]
(3) With respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State, liability coverage ... for bodily injury or death ... for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; provided, however, that the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage in writing.
As a general proposition, UM statutes such as HRS §§ 431:10-213 and 431:10C-301(b)(3)
*123are considered to be remedial in nature5 designed to afford maximum protection to a state’s residents, and to fill the gaps in compulsory insurance plans. Their purpose is to provide a remedy where injury is caused by an uninsured motorist; or, as has been more frequently stated, to provide a remedy to the innocent victims of irresponsible motorists who may have no resources to satisfy the damages they cause.6 This recourse [ ] is provided, then, to cover the situation of a wrongful or tortious act of an uninsured motorist or a hit and run driver, or that of another unknown motorist.
... Ideally, the purpose is to place those insured in the same position they would have occupied had the tortfeasor carried liability insurance....
8C Appleman § 5067.45, at 41-46 (1981) (footnotes omitted).
Being remedial statutes, HRS §§ 431:10-213 and 431:10C-301(b)(3) are “to be construed liberally in order to accomplish the purpose for which [they were] enacted.... [Remedial] statutes are liberally construed to suppress the [perceived] evil and advance the [enacted] remedy.” Flores v. United Air Lines, Inc., 70 Haw. 1, 12, 757 P.2d 641, 647 (1988) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (some brackets in original).
Two general principles apply to UM insurance coverage. First, either “[a]n insured or an insured vehicle must be involved in the accident in order to collect under the UM endorsement.” 12A J. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 45:634, at 127 (R. Anderson and M. Rhodes 2d ed. 1981) [hereafter Couch] (emphasis added). This is because “[t]he uninsured motorist policy is personal to the insured[,]” Palisbo v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd., 57 Haw. 10, 15, 547 P.2d 1350, 1354 (1976) (emphasis added), or, put differently, the UM coverage follows the insured’s person. Accordingly,
[t]he nature of uninsured motorist insurance is such that an insured is covered whether or not he or she is injured while in a vehicle which is insured under the policy.... [A]n insured under the ... policy .:. [is] entitled to recover uninsured motorist insurance benefits ... even though she [is] injured while operating a vehicle not covered by the policy.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 59 Haw. 44, 47-48, 575 P.2d 477, 479-80 (1978). Second, “almost all modern forms of UM coverage *124include passengers,7 or occupants, of an automobile injured by an uninsured motorist; indeed an exclusion of them would, in most states, be invalid.” 8C Appleman § 5080.45, at 255-56 (1981) (footnote omitted and emphasis added).
Construing a statute similar in all material respects to HRS §§ 431:10-213 and 431:10C-301(b)(3), the Connecticut Supreme Court aptly elaborated upon these general principles as follows:
... [Rjequired uninsured motorist coverage is “person oriented.” ... [T]he public policy embodied in [the UM statute] directs that uninsured motorist coverage be provided to insureds when they are not occupants of insured vehicles as well as when they are.
Our uninsured motorist insurance statute ... provides coverage for “persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles .... ” (Emphasis added.) The coverage attaches to the insured person, not the insured vehicle. Thus, this court has held that an injured party may receive the benefits of a policy even though not occupying a vehicle insured under that policy....
[[Image here]]
An insured’s status at the time of the injury, whether passenger, pedestrian, or driver of an insured or uninsured vehicle, is irrelevant to recovery under the statutorily mandated coverage. The coverage is portable: The insured and family members ... are insured no matter where they are injured. They are insured when injured in an owned vehicle named in the policy, in an owned vehicle not named in the policy, in an unowned vehicle, on a motorcycle, on a bicycle, whether afoot or on horseback or even on a pogo stick or in a rocking chair on [one’s] front porch. Uninsured motorist statutes place no geographical limits on coverage and do not purport to tie protection against uninsured motorists to occupancy of an insured vehicle. Uninsured motorist protection of coverage for persons, not for vehicles.
Harvey v. Travelers Indem. Co., 188 Conn. 245, 248, 250, 449 A.2d 157, 159-60 (1982) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
Consistent with the foregoing principles and pursuant to the “insuring agreement” of the UM coverage section of its auto policy (Part C-l), FICH obligated itself to pay damages: (1) sustained by a “covered person”; (2) which the “covered person” is legally entitled to recover from the owner of operator of an uninsured motor vehicle; (3) arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured motor vehicle;8 and (4) which is caused by an accident.
*125On the record before the circuit court, and by the plain language of the FICH auto policy, it is uncontrovertible that: (1) Dawes, at least in her capacity as administrator of Bockhom’s estate, sustained damages; (2) the damages arose out of the use (i.e., operation) of the maroon Honda Accord, which was uninsured; (3) the damages were caused by an accident; and (4) Dawes is legally entitled to recover from the operator of the Accord. Thus, the outcome-dispositive issue in the present appeal is whether, at the time of the accident, Dawes’s decedent, Bockhorn, was a “covered person” within the meaning of the FICH auto policy, as constrained by the public policy underlying HRS §§ 431:10-213 and 431:10C-301(b)(3).
B. Public Policy, Pedestrians As “Covered Persons, ” The Olson Analysis, And “Immediate Proximity To The Vehicle”
As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, Bockhorn was obviously a “covered person” under the FICH auto policy during the period of time when she was a passenger in the insured vehicle, because she was unquestionably a “person occupying” the “covered auto.” It is therefore equally obvious that, had Bockhorn been struck and killed by the uninsured Honda Accord while a passenger in the insured vehicle, the declaratory judgment action giving rise to the present appeal would never have been filed, because FICH would have readily acceded to Dawes’s claim for UM benefits. Accordingly, the fact that Bockhorn was not “occupying” (i.e., “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off’) the insured *126vehicle at the moment of the accident gives rise to the present question on appeal.
Such would not be the case, however, if it had been Skimp, and not Bockhorn, who had been struck and killed by the uninsured Accord as the group trekked to the Kona Airport to obtain alternative transportation and repair assistance following the breakdown of the insured vehicle. Under such hypothetical circumstances, there would be no geographical limits placed on Slump's coverage, which would in no way be tied to occupancy of the insured vehicle, the same being designed to protect Shimp’s person and not the vehicle he had been driving. See Harvey, supra. This is because the FICH auto policy purports to create two distinct classes of “covered persons”: (1) the named insured and his or her family members, such as Shimp; and (2) any other person “occupying” the “covered auto.”
The “two class” paradigm of “covered persons” typically reflected in UM policies, including the FICH auto policy, is described in the scholarly treatises as follows:
... [Uninsured] motorist coverage ... creates two classes of persons who can recover: on the one hand, the named insured, and while resident of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured, and relatives of either; and on the other, those who use, with the consent, express or implied of the named insured, the vehicle to which the policy applies and those who are guests in such vehicle.... And second group persons are only covered when an accident takes place while they are occupying, operating or using the insured vehicle. This is to be contrasted with the fact that first group persons are not required to be associated with the insured auto in order for coverage to attach .... Coverage for the first of the classes listed above, but not for the second, extends to an injury suffered while a pedestrian.
12A Couch § 45:635, at 130-32 (footnotes omitted and emphasis added). Appleman characterizes the dichotomy in this way:
... [A] line of distinction frequently is drawn between persons of the first class and of the second class. Injury received as a pedestrian generally is limited to the former, at least unless some connection with the insured vehicle is shown. Thus even though such persons are travelling together, a different result may follow where injury is received by each. While a pedestrian’s right to recover against his insurer may depend upon the legal liability of the uninsured motorist to him, not every departure from a vehicle necessarily divorces one from his status as a covered passenger. One may be considered still to be “occupying” the vehicle if in reasonable relationship to it at the time of injury.... Generally, the court will take a liberal look at any situation, conferring coverage if it seems desirable where one is not in proximity to the vehicle, while denying a defense to the insurer where the individual was closer, physically, to the automobile. ...
8C Appleman § 5092.35, at 381-82, 386-87 (footnotes omitted and emphasis added).
Recognizing the necessity of “some connection with the insured vehicle” in order for injured “class two” persons to be entitled to UM benefits, some courts have resorted to the fiction that “use” of the insured vehicle is synonymous with its “occupancy”9 and have devised complex and elaborate formulae for determining when such “use” has been established. For example, the Washington Court of Appeals has proffered the following “test”:
... [Wjhether a person can be considered as “using” a motor vehicle and thus an insured under an uninsured motorist endorsement depends on the factual con*127text of each ease provided, however, that at least the following four criteria are met as of the time of the injury: (1) there must be a causal relation or connection between the injury and the use of the insured vehicle; (2) the person asserting coverage must be in a reasonably close geographic proximity to the insured vehicle, although the person need not be actually touching it; (3) the person must be vehicle oriented rather than highway or sidewalk oriented at the time; and (4) the person must also be engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the vehicle at the time.
Rau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 21 Wash.App. 326, 334, 585 P.2d 157, 162 (1978) (citations omitted).
Efforts such as that in Rau to establish “some connection with the insured vehicle,” 8C Appleman § 5092.35 at 381, in order to extend the benefits of UM coverage to “class two” persons, fail, however, to avoid the anomaly that when “class one” and “class two” persons “are travelling together, a different result may follow where injury is received by each.” Id. See, e.g., Kaysen v. Federal Ins. Co., 268 N.W.2d 920 (Minn.1978) (officer-director of corporate named insured struck and killed by uninsured motorist after alighting from company auto; UM coverage extended to him by operation of law but did not extend to officer’s wife, a passenger in same company auto, killed in same accident).
It is apparent to us that application of the Rau test would result in the same anomaly had Shimp and Bockhorn both been struck and killed by the uninsured Honda Accord in the present case. For the reasons discussed below, we believe as a matter of law that there was a “causal relation or connection between [Bockhom’s death] and the use of the insured vehicle,” Rau, 21 Wash.App. at 334, 585 P.2d at 162.10 Nevertheless, in our view, a determination as to whether Bock-horn was “vehicle oriented rather than highway or sidewalk oriented at the time” of her death, id., and whether she was “engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the [insured] vehicle at the time,” id., would be nothing more than a conelusory and self-serving exercise in semantic game playing. Moreover, we do not believe, on the record before us, that any reasonable trier of fact could find that Bockhorn was “in a reasonably close geographic proximity to the insured vehicle,” id., at the time of the accident; accordingly, it is apparent as a matter of law that she was not.
Thus, in the hypothetical circumstances posed in the previous paragraph, Shimp, as a covered “family member,” would be entitled to UM benefits but Bockhorn would not, although both had been occupants of the insured vehicle and both were identically situated with respect to the uninsured Honda Accord. In light of the remedial purpose of HRS §§ 431:10-213 and 431:10C-301(b)(3) “to promote protection ... for persons who are injured by uninsured motorists who cannot pay for personal injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents” and to effect a means of recovery “when the innocent victim shows ... that there is legal liability on the person alleged to be responsible and that the claim cannot be collected because of the financial irresponsibility of that person,”11 such a result is absurd.12 “This court has recognized *128that departure from a literal construction of a statute ‘is justified when such construction would produce an absurd ... result and the literal construction in the particular action is clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act.’ ” Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai'i 46, 60, 868 P.2d 1193, 1207, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 247, 871 P.2d 795 (1994) (quoting Franks v. City and County of Honolulu, 74 Haw. 328, 341, 843 P.2d 668, 674 (1993) (internal quotation marks deleted)). See also Richardson, 76 Hawai'i at 68-69, 868 P.2d at 1215-16 (Klein, J., dissenting). Moreover, we believe that to construe the FICH auto policy’s promise to “pay damages which a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the ... operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury ... [caused] by an accident ... arising] out of the ... use of the uninsured motor vehicle” (emphasis in original) as contemplating such a result would not be “in accord with the reasonable expectations of a layperson.” See Sturla, Inc., 67 Haw. at 209, 684 P.2d at 964. Indeed, we believe that a layperson would be shocked to learn that such a result could be reached by way of legal intellectual gymnastics.
We return to the longstanding propositions, cited in Section III.A. of this opinion, that liability insurers may not limit their liability “in contravention of statutory inhibitions or public policy,” First Ins. Co. of Hawai'i, Inc., 66 Haw. at 423, 665 P.2d at 655, and that “[w]hen the terms of an insurance contract are in conflict with statutory language, the statute must take precedence over the terms of the contract.” Sol, 76 Hawai‘i at 307, 875 P.2d at 924; Methven-Abreu, 73 Haw. at 395-96, 834 P.2d at 285; Olson, 69 Haw. at 563-64, 751 P.2d at 669; Walton, 55 Haw. at 328, 518 P.2d at 1400-01; Columbia Casualty Co., 50 Haw. at 214-15, 437 P.2d at 102.
In this connection, we note that the UM coverage set forth in Part C-l of the FICH auto policy contains five provisions that this court has voided in the past as being in contravention of statutory inhibitions or public policy. First, in DeMello v. First Ins. Co. of Hawai'i, Ltd., 55 Haw. 519, 523 P.2d 304 (1974), we struck down, as contrary to the protective purpose of the Hawaii UM statutes and the public policies implicit therein, *129that portion of the FICH auto policy’s definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle” requiring that a “hit and run vehicle” actually “hit” (i.e., make “physical contact” with) either a covered person, the vehicle that a covered person is occupying, or the covered auto (i e., the insured motor vehicle). Second, in Kau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 58 Haw. 49, 564 P.2d 443 (1977), and again in Meth-ven-Abreu, supra, we voided, as violative of our UM statutes and contrary to public policy, the “owned vehicle” exclusion in the FICH auto policy13 attempting to preclude an insured from recovering UM benefits on the basis that the insured’s injuries were sustained while occupying a vehicle not specifically declared under the policy. Third, to the extent that the FICH auto policy’s attempt to reduee its UM benefits by all sums “[paid] or payable because of the bodily injury under [workers’ compensation laws, disability benefits law,] or similar law” extends to no-fault benefits payable under any auto policy sustained by a covered person, we voided the provision in Sol, supra.14 Cf. Caberto v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 77 Hawai'i 39, 41, 43-44, 881 P.2d 526, 528, 530-531 (1994) (having exempted UM coverage from no-fault reimbursement in Sol, this court held that (1) underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage “is likewise exempt from no-fault reimbursement,” and (2) provision of insurance policy “requiring reimbursement of no-fault benefits from UIM proceeds is void”). Fourth, in Walton, supra, we voided the “other insurance” clause of the FICH auto policy,15 which seeks to limit the recovery of UM benefits by a covered person to less than actual damages or the limit of liability stated in the policy. Fifth, and most important for present purposes, in Olson, supra, we voided, as conflicting with the Hawai'i UM statutes, that portion of the FICH auto policy’s “insuring agreement” regarding UM coverage that requires that “covered persons” other than the named insured and “family members” be “occupying [a] covered auto” (i.e., be occupying an insured vehicle) at the time of injury. Such, apparently, is the deference that FICH accords the law of this state when it comes to issuing auto policies consonant therewith.
Given that the plain language of the FICH auto policy, as “interpreted according to [its] plain, ordinary, and accepted sense in common speech,” see First Ins. Co. of Hawai'i, Inc., 66 Haw. at 424, 665 P.2d at 655, includes passengers within the definition of “covered persons,” and bearing in mind that “class two covered persons” such as Bock-horn, see 12A Couch § 45:635, at 130-31, need not be “occupants” of an insured vehicle, see Olson, supra, but must have “some connection with the insured vehicle” in order to be entitled to UM benefits, see 8C Apple-man § 5092.35, at 381, we now reach the heart of Dawes’s appeal: was Boekhom a “covered person” under the FICH auto policy at the time of the accident or was she not? *130If the answer to the question is “yes,” then Dawes is entitled to UM benefits as a matter of law; if the answer is “no,” then Dawes is not entitled to UM benefits as a matter of law. For us to resolve the issue, we must revisit this court’s analysis in Olson.
In Olson, an insurer issued an auto policy containing UM coverage, identical in all material respects to the FICH auto policy, to International Life Support, Inc. (ILS), an emergency ambulance service. The crew of one of ILS’s ambulances consisted of Olson, an emergency medical technician trained in basic life support care, and Jones, a mobile intensive care technician qualified to administer more advanced life support procedures. ILS was the named insured under the auto policy covering the ambulance, and Olson and Jones, not being “family members” of ILS, fell into the policy’s category of insureds designated “anyone else occupying a covered auto.”
On the evening in question, the ambulance crew responded to an automobile accident call. The crew encountered a motorcycle laying partially in the roadway. A man with a flashlight was attempting to direct traffic, the police not having yet arrived at the accident scene. Jones instructed Olson to set flares on the roadway. Olson exited the ambulance and obtained a flare from the rear of the vehicle; he then walked to the center of the road to place the flare. While in the roadway attempting to light the flare, Olson was struck and injured by an uninsured motor vehicle driven by an uninsured motorist.
As a result of Olson’s personal injury, the insurer commenced a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Although the outcome of the proceeding at the district court level is unclear, the matter was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure 13, the Ninth Circuit certified three questions to this court; for present purposes, the relevant question inquired whether the statutory predecessors to HRS §§ 481:10-213,16 431:100-103(13),17 and 431:10C-301 permitted UM coverage to be restricted to persons “occupying” an insured vehicle. Not surprisingly, the insurer urged, inter alia, that the policy provision controlled and that Olson was not entitled to recover UM benefits because he was not “occupying” the ambulance when the accident occurred.
This court answered the Ninth Circuit’s certified question in the negative, reasoning as follows:
We begin our analysis of the problem by recognizing that both the no-fault and uninsured motorist statutes have as their purpose the protection of users of motor vehicles from bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting from motor vehicle accidents. See HRS §§ 431-*131448,18 294-1,19 294-2(l).20 Furthermore, we recognize that the legislature intended the phrase “operation, maintenance or use” in HRS Chapter 294 to be a term of art which when used throughout the chapter means accidents resulting from activities prescribed “in the immediate proximity of the vehicle.” HRS § 294-2(12);21 Conf. Comm.Rep. No 28, in 1974 House Journal, at 864, 866.
To recognize [the insurer’s] position would require us to acknowledge that the policy provision can be paramount over the statutory provision when a conflict exists. We have in the past voided such a policy provision where it conflicted with the statute. Therefore, we hold that the ... policy restriction is in conflict with the statute and is void.
[[Image here]]
For the reasons stated, on the facts of this case, Olson has uninsured motorist coverage within the ILS insurance policy and HRS § 431-448.
Olson, 69 Haw. at 563-66, 751 P.2d at 669 (citations omitted and emphasis added).
Although we agree with this court’s holding in Olson that auto policy language purporting to restrict UM coverage for non-named insureds and non-family members to other persons “occupying a covered auto” is void, we nevertheless believe that the Olson analysis is both inaccurate and unduly restrictive for two reasons.
First, contrary to this court’s statement in Olson, the purpose underlying the Hawai'i UM statutes is not limited to the protection of “users of motor vehicles.” On its face, HRS § 431-448 (now HRS § 431:10C-301(b)) mandated that auto policies extend UM coverage for the protection of all insured “persons ... who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury ..., including death, resulting therefrom[J” Cf Palisbo, supra; Morgan, supra. As noted above, the relevant legislative history is in accord. See supra note 6. Accordingly, the Hawaii UM statutes mandate that coverage extend to “injury received as a pedestrian ” where “some connection with the insured vehicle is shown.” 8C Appleman § 5092.35, at 381 (emphasis added).
Second, and of particular significance, we believe that the Olson court simply misread Hse.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 28, in 1974 House Journal, at 864, 866, when it concluded that the phrase “operation, maintenance or use,” now appearing in HRS § 431:100-103(13), see supra note 17 and accompanying text, was “a term of art which when used throughout the [Motor Vehicle Insurance] chapter means accidents resulting from activities prescribed ‘in the immediate proximity of the [insured] vehicle.’ ” Set out in full, the legislative history on which the Olson court relied was the following:
*132(5) Definition: “Operation, maintenance, or use[.]”
In view of the [insurance] industry’s objection to the definition of this phrase in the Act, your Committee has redefined it with particular reference to the inclusion or exclusion of loading or unloading a vehicle.
The Act included, as no-fault damage, all losses incurred during loading and unloading an insured vehicle. The industry recommended the exclusion of all such losses, requiring instead that a victim must be “occupying, entering”, or “alighting from” a vehicle at the time of loss to be covered.
The industry, in testimony, cited the costly danger of having claims made for injuries sustained during loading operations which, in fact, were far removed from the parked, but insured, vehicle.
Your Committee has, therefore, sought to limit this threat, and simultaneously to provide coverage for losses commonly associated with the use or maintenance of a vehicle. By using a territorial criteria [sic] for this measure, we believe we have attained a moderate and moderating resolution. By requiring that an injury during loading, to be covered, must occur “in the immediate proximity of the vehicle” we have included under no-fault coverage such common one person accidents as the following:
(a) The mother-driver who turns an ankle while lifting an infant from a back seat of her parked car.
(b) The driver injured while hoisting a spare tire out of a modern, but impossible, trunk, preparatory to changing a flat.
Hse.Stand.Comm.Rep. No 28, in 1974 House Journal, at 866 (emphasis added).
Two things are apparent from the foregoing legislative history: (1) in crafting the definition of “operation, maintenance or use with respect to a motor vehicle,” the legislature was responding to concerns expressed by the insurance industry regarding “loading and unloading a vehicle” when “injuries sustained during loading operations ... were far removed from the parked, but insured, vehicle”; and (2) the insurance industry’s concerns were limited to the context of no-fault insurance coverage. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the phrase “in the immediate proximity of the vehicle” has any application to UM coverage at all; in any event, by the plain language of HRS § 431:100-103(13), it is clearly limited to the context of conduct “in the course of loading or unloading the vehicle[.]”22
The non-applicability of “the immediate proximity of the vehicle” to the issue of Dawes’s right to UM benefits highlights the. irrelevance, under Hawaii law, of such formulations as the Rau test in determining the right of persons other than named insureds and their family members, who have been passengers in an insured vehicle but are injured by uninsured motorists while pedestrians, to UM coverage. As we have noted, the critical element with respect to such claimants is a sufficient “connection with the insured vehicle.” 8C Appleman § 5092.35, at 381.
Accordingly, we believe that the “chain of events” test, as articulated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, is the most “appropriate” for deciding whether claimants in Dawes’s position are entitled to UM benefits. See Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Sanders, 803 P.2d 688, 691 (Okla.1990). Specifically, Dawes is entitled to UM benefits if Bock-horn’s occupancy of Shimp’s insured vehicle “started the chain of events which resulted in [Bockhorn’s injury[.]” Id.23
*133The Safeco “chain of events” test is amenable to the formulation of a new rule, which we now adopt as the law of this state: For purposes of entitlement to UM benefits, (1) if a person was a passenger in an insured vehicle being operated by a named insured or a named insured’s family member, (2) during the chain of events resulting in injury to the person caused by an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle, (3) then the person is a “covered person” at the time of his or her injury to the same extent as the named insured or the named insured’s family members would be entitled to receive UM benefits under the applicable UM policy.24
As established in section III.A. of this opinion, it is uneontroverted that: (1) Bock-horn was a passenger in the insured vehicle; (2) the insured vehicle was being operated by Shimp, a “family member” of the named insured; (3) the insured vehicle broke down; (4) as a result of the breakdown, the occupants of the insured vehicle, including Bock-horn, exited and proceeded on foot to the Kona airport in order to obtain alternative transportation and repair assistance; and (5) en route to the group’s destination, Boekhorn sustained fatal injuries as a result of the operation of an uninsured vehicle by an uninsured motorist. Accordingly, we hold as a matter of law that Boekhorn was a “covered person” within the meaning of the UM provisions of the FICH auto policy and that Dawes is entitled to UM benefits thereunder. It therefore follows that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in FICH’s favor.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, we reverse the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of FICH and against Dawes and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Dawes and against FICH.

. FICH issued its auto policy to Shimp’s father on June 21, 1988; the policy period commenced on that date and remained in effect through December 21, 1988. Affidavit of Elizabeth Nel-ander at 1.

. HRS § 431:10-213 (1987 Spec. Pamphlet) was repealed by Act 195, § 43, 1989 Haw.Sess.Laws 374, 388. There is no specific legislative history as to why, other than that "this housekeeping measure [was] necessary to maintain continuity within the Insurance Code [i.e., HRS ch. 431]." Sen.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 66, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 787; Hse.Conf.Comm.Rep. No. 132, in 1989 House Journal, at 817. Presumably, HRS § 431:10-213 was deleted from the Insurance Code because it was substantially duplica-tive of HRS § 431:10C-301 (1987 Spec.Pamphlet & Supp.1992).

. HRS § 431:10C-103(23)(A) (1987 Spec.Pamphlet & Supp.1992) defines "uninsured motor vehicle” to include "[a] motor vehicle for which there is no bodily injury liability insurance or self-insurance applicable at the time of the accident[.]" HRS § 431:10C-103(9) (1987 Spec.Pamphlet) defines "motor vehicle accident” to mean "an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, including an object drawn or propelled by a motor vehicle.” Although the term "accident” is statutorily undefined, HRS § 431:10C-103(1) (1987 Spec.Pamphlet) defines "accidental harm" to mean "bodily injury, death, sickness, or disease caused by a motor vehicle accident to a person.” For a discussion of the conditions that render bodily injury or death “accidental,” see AIG Ins. Co., Inc. v. Estate of Caraang, 74 Haw. 620, 635-36, 851 P.2d 321, 328-29 (1993).

.The legislature effected non-substantive amendments to HRS § 431:10C—301(b)(3) in 1988 and 1992. See Act 306, § 1, 1988 Haw.Sess.Laws 575-76; Act 123, § 4, 1992 Haw.Sess.Laws 202, 208-09.

. See Methven-Abreu v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd., 73 Haw. 385, 395-96, 834 P.2d 279, 285, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 838 P.2d 860 (1992) (Hawai'i UM statute "was to be 'liberally construed to accomplish its remedial purposes and give effect to the legislative intent.’ ") (quoting Kau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 58 Haw. 49, 51, 564 P.2d 443, 444 (1977)) (emphasis added).
"Generally, remedial statutes are those which provide a remedy, or improve or facilitate remedies already existing for the enforcement of rights and the redress of injuries." N. Singer, 3 Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 60.02 (4th ed. 1986) (footnote omitted).... “Modem social legislation is generally regarded as being remedial in nature. ‘Socioeconomic’ legislation has been said to be entitled to a liberal construction." Id.
Flores v. United Air Lines, Inc., 70 Haw. 1, 12 n. 8, 757 P.2d 641, 647 n. 8 (1988).

. The relevant Hawai'i legislative history is in accord.
The purpose of [UM coverage] is to promote protection, through voluntary insurance, for persons who are injured by uninsured motorists who cannot pay for personal injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents. The bill would require all companies writing policies insuring against liability for personal injuries and property damages to offer to their clients "uninsured motorist protection".
... [Claims] become[ ] payable when the innocent victim shows that his claim is valid, that is, that there is legal liability on the person alleged to be responsible and that the claim cannot be collected because of the financial irresponsibility of that person or because of the inability to identify the person or persons responsible.
In testimony ..., instances have been cited where persons have suffered extensive personal injuries and property damages and found that the guilty motorist was financially irresponsible and without any liability insurance. Your Committee believes that if the general public knows about the availability of such insurance, and if the insurance companies are compelled to offer it, many of these tragic consequences can be avoided.
Hse.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 194, in 1965 House Journal, at 582. See also Sen.Stand.Comm.Rep. No. 429, in 1965 Senate Journal, at 1013-14.

. "Passenger” has been defined to mean “any occupant of a vehicle other than the person operating it." Black’s Law Dictionary 1123 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added). Thus, for purposes of UM coverage, a "passenger" is synonymous with a "person occupying" a "covered auto."

. The dissent recasts “the central inquiry governing Bockhorn's entitlement to [UM] coverage” as "whether her death arose out of the 'ownership, maintenance or use' of the vehicle” (i.e., the "covered auto” under the FICH auto policy) as that term is utilized in HRS § 431:10-213 and defined in HRS § 431:10C-103(13). Dissenting opinion 134, 136 & n. 2, 883 P.2d 55, 57 & n. 2. In doing so, the dissent both misapprehends the significance of the phrase "ownership, maintenance or use" contained in HRS § 431:10-213, within the context of UM coverage, and ignores the plain language of the FICH policy.
As we have indicated, at the time of the accident causing Bockhorn's death, HRS § 431:10-213(a) (the sole subject of which was UM coverage) provided, inter alia, that all auto liability policies issued in Hawai'i and "insuring against loss for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle” were required to provide "coverage for the protection of the persons insured who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles." (Emphasis added.) See supra at 122, 883 P.2d at 43. At the same time, HRS § 431:10C-301(b)(3), with which HRS § 431:213(a) must be read in pari materia, see dissenting opinion at 134, 883 P.2d at 55, and which survived the latter’s repeal in 1989, see supra note 2, required that the same auto liability policies include coverage "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, ... including death....” (Emphasis added.) See supra at 122, 883 P.2d at 43.
It is significant that the phrase “operation, maintenance, or use” nowhere appears in HRS § 431:10C-301(b)(3), which deals exclusively with UM coverage, although it does appear in *125those provisions of the statute dealing with the insured's liability coverage. Specifically, HRS § 431:10C-301 (1987 Spec.Pamphlet) provides in relevant part:
Required motor vehicle policy coverage, (a) ... [A]n insurance policy covering a motor vehicle shall provide:
[[Image here]]
(2) Insurance to pay on behalf of the owner or any operator of the insured motor vehicle using the motor vehicle with the express or implied permission of the named insured, sums which the owner or operator may legally be obligated to pay for injury [or] death ... which arise[s] out of the ownership, operation; maintenance, or use of the motor vehicle.
(b) A motor vehicle insurance policy shall include:
(1) Liability coverage ... for all damages arising out of accidental harm sustained by any ... person as a result of any ... accident ... arising out of ownership, maintenance, use, loading, or unloading of the insured vehiclef]
(Bold in original and underscoring added.)
Nevertheless, the dissent suggests that "the 'ownership, maintenance or use' clause clearly applies to HRS § 431:10C-301(b)(3), notwithstanding the absence of those terms in that subsection, and the scope of coverage mandated by the statute must be interpreted accordingly.” Dissenting opinion at 135, 883 P.2d at 56. The dissent then posits that "[t]he issue thus is: to whom do the terms apply, the uninsured motorist or the claimant?” Id. For the reasons set forth infra in this footnote, the answer to the dissent’s question is a qualified "both.” The term, "operation, maintenance, or use” applies to insured tortfeasors who operate, maintain, or use a "covered auto,” as defined in the general definitions section of the FICH auto policy, and who FICH has a contractual duly to indemnify and defend, as well as to tortfeasors who operate uninsured motor vehicles and against whom "covered persons,” as defined in the insuring agreement of the FICH auto policy’s UM coverage provisions, assert claims. The term does not apply to "covered persons" under the UM provisions of the FICH auto policy. In this connection, the dissent conveniently ignores the highlighted language, set forth supra in this footnote, of both HRS §§ 431:10-213(a) and 43L10C-301(a)(2), in addition to the language of HRS § 431:10C-301 (b)(3).
It is patently obvious from the plain language of the statutory scheme set forth above that the "operation, maintenance, or use” triggering UM coverage is that of the "owner[] or operator[] of [the] uninsured motor vehicle[]” causing injury and not that of the injured insured or "covered” person claiming entitlement to UM benefits. See HRS §§ 431:10-213(a) and 431:10C-301(b)(3). By the same token, it is equally obvious that the "operation, maintenance, or use” triggering auto liability insurance protection is that of the owner or operator of the insured motor vehicle who is claiming the protection. For that reason, reading HRS § 431:10-213(a) in pari materia with HRS § 431:10C-103(13) (1987 Spec.Pamphlet), see dissenting opinion at 136 & n. 2, 883 P.2d at 57 & n. 2, is of no assistance to the dissent’s theory. It is hardly "front page news” that an insured or uninsured tortfeasor cannot "operate” or "use” an insured or uninsured motor vehicle without “occupying, entering into or alighting from it[.]”
In light of the above, it is not surprising that the UM coverage provisions of the FICH auto policy at issue in the present case obligated FICH to pay damages to an accidentally injured “covered person” whose injuries arose "out of the ownership, maintenance or use of [an] uninsured motor vehicle” (bold in original). See supra at 120, 883 P.2d at 41.

. Relying on the Olson analysis discussed below, this court came to the interesting conclusion that, for purposes of establishing the proper source of no-fault coverage, the insured person in question, who had suffered personal injury, was simultaneously a pedestrian and an occupant of her own insured vehicle, having decided to "construe the term 'vehicle occupied by the injured person' as being coextensive with the term 'operation, maintenance or use' as used in HRS Chapter 294 [i.e., the Motor Vehicle Accident Reparation Act—the precursor to HRS ch. 431].” Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. First Ins. Co. of Hawai'i, Ltd., 71 Haw. 42, 44, 780 P.2d 1112, 1114 (1989).

.We make this observation only for purposes of assessing the viability of the Rau test. As we have indicated, with respect to Dawes's entitlement to UM benefits in the present case, the only vehicle the "use” of which is at issue is the uninsured maroon Honda Accord that caused Bockhom's death. See supra note 8. As a pedestrian at the time of the fatal accident, Bock-horn was a "covered person” under the UM provisions of the FICH auto policy as a function of her “connection with the insured vehicle,” i.e., the "Jeep Cherokee” style automobile owned by Shimp’s father, and not her "use” of it. See 8C Appleman § 5092.35, at 381-82. It is for this reason that the dissent is simply mistaken when it characterizes “a causal connection between [Bockhom's] use of the [insured vehicle] and [Bockhom’s] injury” as "the critical element,” dissenting opinion at 143, 883 P.2d at 64 (emphasis added), and when it suggests that "Bock-hom’s very argument for relief from the 'occupancy' restriction of the policy ... necessarily rests on the fact that 'operation, maintenance or use,' as set forth in the statute, ... applies to her,” id. at 136, 883 P.2d at 57.

. See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

. The dissent seeks to rationalize the hypothetically disparate treatment of Shimp and Bock-horn described above as follows:
... Shimp and his family are covered for bodily injury or death under their UM policy as *128pedestrians because they bargained and paid for the coverage. Here, the patent, sensible, and ultimately fair distinction ... between Shimp and Bockhom is that Bockhom never paid a single premium to the insurer; accordingly she is not entitled to the same scope of coverage as Shimp.
Dissenting opinion at 140, 883 P.2d at 61 (emphasis in original). Whether or not the distinction is "patent,” we submit that it is anything but "sensible” or “ultimately fair.” Shimp’s father, not Shimp himself, was the named insured under the FICH auto policy; Shimp is a "covered person” under the UM provisions of the policy only because he falls within the policy’s definition of a "family member.” See supra at 120, 883 P.2d at 41. In that sense, Shimp and Bockhom are both third party beneficiaries of the insurance contract between FICH and Shimp's father. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Shimp paid FICH any consideration for his UM coverage. To suggest that "they [i.e., Shimp and his family] bargained and paid for the coverage” is, at the very least, misleading.
Moreover, the dissent’s attempt to explain why Shimp would be entitled to UM benefits, had he rather than Bockhom been injured under the circumstances of this case, further underscores the internal inconsistency of the dissent’s fundamental premise. The dissent advises that "any test purporting to effectuate the legislative intent underlying the plain meaning and legislative history of HRS §§ 431:10-213 and 431:10C-103(13) at the very least must incorporate a reasonable physical proximity limitation!.]” Dissenting opinion at 144, 883 P.2d at 65. If this were true, then neither Shimp nor Bockhom would be entitled to UM benefits, unless a distance of approximately one mile from the location of the insured vehicle is considered “reasonably proximate.” The dissent seeks to refute this fact by attempting to limit the reasonable physical proximity limitation to "non-family members who ‘occupy’ the [insured] vehicle” and by suggesting that "coverage as to 'family members,' like Shimp, remains valid[.]” Id. at 140, 883 P.2d at 61. In making such an argument, the dissent is trying to have it both ways. Either HRS § 431:10C-103(13) contains a blanket "reasonable physical proximity” limitation or it does not. If it does, then the limitation applies across the boards as a constraint on UM coverage, and Shimp, under the circumstances of this case, would be unlawfully deprived of the protection to which both we and the dissent agree that he is entitled.

. The "exclusions” section of the FICH auto policy, Part C-l (UM Coverage), provides in relevant part:
A. We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for bodily injury sustained by any person:
1. While occupying, or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by [the named insured] or any family member which is not insured for this coverage under this policy....
(Emphasis in original.)

. We acknowledge both that Sol v. AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co., 76 Hawai'i 304, 875 P.2d 921, reconsideration denied, 76 Hawai'i 353, 877 P.2d 890 (1994), was handed down well after FICH initially denied Dawes's claim for UM benefits and that the central issue presented in Sol is not material to this case.

.The "other insurance” section of the FICH auto policy, Part C-l, provides:
If there is other applicable similar insurance, we will pay only our share of the loss. Our share is the proportion that our limit of liability bears to the total of all applicable limits. However, any insurance we provide with respect to a vehicle [the named insured] do[es] not own shall be excess over any other collectible insurance.

. At the time, HRS § 431-448 (1976) provided in relevant part:
Automobile liability; coverage for damage by uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle. No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, shall be delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this State, with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State, unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto ... for bodily injury or death ... for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom, provided, however, that the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage in writing.
(Bold in original and underscoring added.)

. HRS § 431:10C-103(13) (1987 Spec. Pamphlet) provides:
Operation, maintenance or use with respect to a motor vehicle includes occupying, entering into and alighting from it, but does not include:
(A) Conduct in the course of loading or un- . loading the vehicle, unless the accidental harm occurs in the immediate proximity of the vehicle; and
(B) Conduct within the course of a business of repairing, servicing, or otherwise maintaining vehicles, unless the conduct occurs outside the premises of such business.

. See supra note 16.

. HRS § 294-1 (1985) provided:
Purpose, (a) The purpose of this chapter is to create a system of reparations for accidental harm and loss arising from motor vehicle accidents, to compensate these damages without regard to fault, and to limit tort liability for these accidents.
(Emphasis added.) HRS § 294-2(9) (1985) defined "motor vehicle accident” to mean “an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, including an object drawn or propelled by a motor vehicle.” (Emphasis added.)
HRS ch. 294, the Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, was repealed in its entirety in 1987 and replaced by HRS ch. 431. Act 347, §§ 1 and 2, 1987 Haw.Sess.Laws 1-342. HRS § 294-2(9) became HRS § 431:100-103(9). See supra note 3.

. HRS § 294-2(1) (1985) defined “accidental harm” to mean "bodily injury, death, sickness, or disease caused by a motor vehicle accident to a person.” Following its repeal in 1987, see supra note 19, the definition was recodified as HRS § 431:100-103(1). See supra note 3.

. HRS § 294-2(12) (1985) provided that " ‘operation, maintenance, or use’ when used with respect to a motor vehicle includes occupying, entering into and alighting from it but does not include conduct in the course of loading or unloading the vehicle unless the accidental harm occurs in the immediate proximity of the vehicle...(Emphasis added.) Following its repeal, see supra note 16, the provision was recodified as HRS § 431:100-103(13). See supra note 17.

. The dissent opines that "an immediate physi- . cal proximity requirement is implicit in HRS § 431:10C—103(13)" and that, therefore, "the addition of an explicit limitation would have been superfluous and redundant.” Dissenting opinion at 138, 883 P.2d at 59. What the dissent overlooks is that “the immediate proximity of the vehicle” is already embedded as "an explicit limitation” in HRS § 431:10C—103(13)(A). See supra note 17. If the dissent were correct that the requirement is implicit in the entirety of HRS § 431:100-103(13), then the language of subsection HRS § 431:10C-103(13)(A) would be “superfluous and redundant.”

. Contrary to the suggestion at 141, 883 P.2d at 62 of the dissenting opinion, "the outcome-dis-positive issue" in the present case is not "whether the claimant [i.e., Bockhom] was engaged in *133'use' of a vehicle at the time of her injury[J” (Emphasis in original.) See supra notes 8 and 10. Both Safeco and the present case involve the use of an uninsured vehicle by uninsured motorists.

. We take issue with the dissent's claim that the rule we announce today "affords virtually limitless coverage once a claimant has occupied an insured vehicle.” Dissenting opinion at 143, 883 P.2d at 64. In most cases, the question of causation—that is, whether the claimant was a passenger in an insured vehicle during the chain of events resulting in injury to the claimant caused by an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle—will present a genuine issue of material fact. The hypotheticals posed at 143-144, 883 P.2d at 64-65 of the dissenting opinion represent some interesting examples. Indeed, under some of them, a claimant may not be entitled to UM coverage as a matter of law. In any event, the present parties agreed that the matter before us was ripe for summary judgment. See supra at 6.