Court Opinion

ID: 9666064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:03:48.940919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:23.338258
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The result reached in the majority opinion defeats what I believe is the underlying purpose of the uninsured motorist statute and that result is not required by either the express provisions of the statute, nor the prior opinions of this court. The reliance which the majority place upon the literal meaning of the term “hit” in the phrase “hit-and-run” is misplaced. “Hit-and-run” is a colloquialism. When viewed in the light of the evident legislative purpose, it refers not to physical contact, but rather to causation and to an operator whose identity is unknown because he fled the scene. I do not believe that anyone would suggest (irrespective of policy definitions, that the term “hit-and-run” for purposes of the statute would include a motorist who in fact is insured and who, after physical contact between vehicles, flees the scene and whose identity is unknown but is later discovered before claim is made. Yet, if we give to the phrase “hit-and-run” the literal meaning which *125the majority opinion gives it, such an individual is a “hit-and-run” motorist against whom “uninsured motorist” coverage is afforded under the claimant’s own policy. The language “hit-and-run” was intended to convey a concept and not necessarily to describe only physical contact between vehicles.
It is surely doubtful that the Legislature, when enacting the uninsured motorist statute, was focusing on the literal meaning of the word “hit.” Rather it was concerned with affording “uninsured motorist” coverage where an unidentified motorist caused the accident and could not be found. I think that the average person who has purchased uninsured motorist coverage will be astounded to learn that he has no such coverage when he is injured after being forced from the highway by a drunken driver who is never apprehended and whose identity is never learned.
In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Selders, 187 Neb. 342, 190 N. W. 2d 789, we said, quoting from Stephens v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 182 Neb. 562, 156 N. W. 2d 133: “ ‘A provision, drawn by the insurer to comply with the statutory requirement of uninsured motorist coverage, must be construed in light of the purpose and policy of the statute. Such a provision, drawn in pursuance of a statutorily declared public policy, is enacted for the benefit of injured persons traveling on the public highways. Its purpose is to give the same protection to the person injured by an uninsured motorist as he would have had if he had been injured in an accident caused by an automobile covered by a standard liability policy. Such provisions are to be liberally construed to accomplish such purpose.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) We went on to say: “Statutory requirements must be complied with by insurers and if the policy issued fails in this respect, the statute will be read into the policy. See Protective Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cornelius, 176 Neb. 75, 125 N. W. 2d 179.”
There is ample precedent from other jurisdictions *126supporting the position I would take. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. Novak, 83 Wash. 2d 576, 520 P. 2d 1368; Webb v. United Services Auto. Assn., 227 Pa. Super. 508, 323 A. 2d 737; Montoya v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 394 F. Supp. 1337.