Court Opinion

ID: 9597961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:04:12.783917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:40.061136
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in substance with the court’s response to the first certified question and in its general language in response to the second. I write in partial dissent only out of concern that perhaps our answer to question number two does not fully deal with the facts of the case. Although the second certified question does not include the fact that the policy in question by its terms expressly insured against punitive *217damages, such appears to be the case. The policy included the usual uninsured motorists endorsement specifically excluding punitive damages, but then endorsement CG-5393 was added providing that the exclusion of coverage for punitive damages should not apply. Aetna admits this to be so.
In Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mutual, 621 P.2d 1155 (Okl.1980) we recognized an exception to the general public policy against allowing insurance to cover punitive damages. That exception takes effect where the insured is a blameless employer held vicariously liable for the torts of his employee. Here the insured employer Multi Media Inc. was equally blameless — the uninsured motorist Walley was the tortfeasor against whom the verdict for punitive damages was returned. But in addition Multi Media Inc. had bought and (presumably) paid for a policy of uninsured motorist insurance which by its terms covered punitive damages.
Where, as in this case, Aetna issued such a policy, charging for and presumably collecting the premium for such coverage, and where, as here, the insured is factually blameless, my notions of propriety would not be offended by considering Aetna to be estopped from raising the public policy dé-fense.
This approach would not let driver/defendant Walley avoid the consequences of his wrongdoing should Aetna pursue as normal its rights of subrogation — the ultimate liability for punitive damages would fall back on the tortfeasor as.public policy dictates. See Lipscombe v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 213 Va. 81, 189 S.E.2d 320 (1972).
I am authorized to state that V.C.J. OPA-LA joins in these views.