SULLIVAN MILLER v DOE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12003 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1972 JOHN T, SULLIVAN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsJOHN DOE, GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, A Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ; and HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . WILLIAM F, MILLER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, JOHN DOE, GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, a Montana C o r p o r a t i o n and STATE F R INSURANCE COMPANY, a AM Corporation, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Poore, McKenzie & Roth, B u t t e , Montana. 1 James A. Poore, 1 1 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana. John L. McKeon, Anaconda, Montana. Michael J , McKeon a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana. Knight, Dahood & Mackay, Anaconda, Montana. F o r Respondents: Burgess, J o y c e , P r o t h e r o , Whelan & ear^, B u t t e , Montana, Thomas F. Joyce a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana. Robert OILeary a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana. Submitted: J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1972 Decided : MAR Filed: MAR 2 O 1972 2 O 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l on b e h a l f of a n u n i d e n t i f i e d u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t and t h r e e i n s u r a n c e companies from two p e r s o n a l i n j u r y judgments e n t e r e d a g a i n s t t h e r e s p e c t i v e i n s u r e r s p u r s u a n t t o "uninsured m o t o r i s t " p r o v i s i o n s of t h e i r p o l i c i e s . The judgments were i n t h e amount of $20,000 e a c h , one i n f a v o r of t h e policeman d r i v e r and t h e o t h e r i n f a v o r of t h e policeman p a s s e n g e r , of a c i t y o f B u t t e p o l i c e c a r which was involved i n a c o l l i s i o n w i t h a n a u t o m o b i l e a l l e g e d l y d r i v e n by a n unknown and uninsured d r i v e r , w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n o r c o n s e n t o f t h e owner. The f a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e a c c i d e n t i t s e l f a r e n o t complex. A t a b o u t 6 : 4 5 a.m. on October 21, 1969, t h e two p l a i n t i f f s , John T. S u l l i v a n and t h e l a t e William F. M i l l e r , policemen f o r t h e c i t y o f B u t t e , were on d u t y p a t r o l l i n g t h e warehouse d i s t r i c t i n Butte. Patrolman S u l l i v a n was d r i v i n g t h e p o l i c e c a r n o r t h on Arizona S t r e e t i n t h e northbound l a n e of t r a v e l a t a speed of a b o u t 15 t o 20 m i l e s a n h o u r , w i t h p l a i n t i f f M i l l e r b e s i d e him i n t h e f r o n t s e a t a s a passenger. The s t r e e t was s t r a i g h t , l i g h t e d w i t h overhead l i g h t s , t h e r e was n o o b s t r u c t i o n t o v i s i b i l i t y , n o r was t h e r e any t r a f f i c o t h e r t h a n t h e two v e h i c l e s involved i n t h e a c c i d e n t . The h e a d l i g h t s o f t h e p o l i c e c a r were on and i n good working o r d e r . The weather was good and t h e s t r e e t was c l e a r . Immediately p r e c e d i n g t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e two p l a i n t i f f s were engaged i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g two s u s p e c t s t h e y thought would be b u r g l a r i z i n g a drug s t o r e . A s the p l a i n t i f f s proceeded n o r t h on Arizona S t r e e t , p l a i n t i f f M i l l e r &outed a warning t o p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n t o "watch o u t i ' . Immediately t h e r e a f t e r a head-on c o l l i s i o n occurred between t h e p o l i c e c a r and a 1968 Pontiac 4--door automobile. was i n t h e northbound l a n e of t r a v e l . The p o i n t of impact P l a i n t i f f Sullivan t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t s e e t h e Pontiac automobile a t a l l p r i o r t o impact a l t h o u g h he had been looking s t r a i g h t ahead and t o t h e s i d e f o r a t l e a s t a h a l f block p r i o r t o impact. A f t e r t h e c o l l i s i o n p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n was semiconscious, but managed t o c a l l f o r h e l p on t h e p o l i c e c a r r a d i o . When t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r who had been c a l l e d a r r i v e d a t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e r e was no one i n t h e P o n t i a c , i t s l i g h t s and eng i n e were s h u t o f f and i t was locked. The d r i v e r of t h e Pontiac has never been l o c a t e d o r i d e n t i f i e d . The Pontiac had a p p a r e n t l y been taken from t h e Leskovar Motors used c a r l o t by an unknown person without t h e permission o r consent of t h e owner. Both p l a i n t i f f s were s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t . A t t h e time of t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n had i n c u r r e d medical expenses of $1,026.10 and a s a l a r y l o s s of $4,548. Plaintiff S u l l i v a n was s t i l l permanently d i s a b l e d a t t h e time of t r i a l , t h e e x t e n t and d u r a t i o n of h i s f u t u r e d i s a b i l i t y and f u t u r e medical expenses being u n c e r t a i n . As a r e s u l t of h i s i n j u r i e s , he i n c u r r e d c o n s i d e r a b l e pain and s u f f e r i n g of a c o n t i n u i n g nature. S u l l i v a n had r e c e i v e d a t o t a l of $14,0b1.05 i n medical expenses and compensation b e n e f i t s under t h e Montana workmen's Compensation Act, a s a r e s u l t of h i s i n j u r i e s and d i s a b i l i t y . P l a i n t i f f Miller l i k e w i s e was permanently d i s a b l e d w i t h medical expenses of $1,405.30 and a s a l a r y l o s s of $5,003. The e x t e n t of h i s f u t u r e d i s a b i l i t y and medical expenses was undetermined. A s a r e s u l t of h i s i n j u r i e s , he suffered extensive pain and s u f f e r i n g which w i l l continue i n t h e f u t u r e . ceived a t o t a l of $13,735.30 He r e - i n medical expenses and compensation - 3 - b e n e f i t s under t h e Montana workmen's Compensation Act. A t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e c i t y of B u t t e c a r r i e d a n automobile i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y on t h e i n v o l v e d p o l i c e c a r c o n t a i n i n g a n "uninsured m o t o r i s t " endorsement w i t h d e f e n d a n t G l a c i e r G e n e r a l Assurance Company and b o t h S u l l i v a n and M i l l e r were I1 i n s u r e d s ' ' w i t h i n t h e meaning d t h e p o l i c y . In addition, p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n c a r r i e d h i s own p o l i c y w i t h a n "uninsured m o t o r i s t ' ' endorsement w i t h d e f e n d a n t H a r t f o r d Accident & I n demnity Company, w h i l e p l a i n t i f f M i l l e r c a r r i e d h i s own p o l i c y w i t h a n "uninsured m o t o r i s t " endorsement w i t h d e f e n d a n t S t a t e Farm Mutua 1 Automobile I n s u r a n c e Company. P l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n f i l e d a persona 1 i n j u r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t John Doe, t h e u n i d e n t i f i e d and u n i n s u r e d d r i v e r o f t h e P o n t i a c a u t o m o b i l e ; G l a c i e r General Assurance Company, t h e i n s u r e r o f t h e c i t y o f B u t t e ; and H a r t f o r d Accident & Indemnity Company, his insurer. I n t h i s a c t i o n S u l l i v a n s o u g h t judgment t h a t t h e u n i d e n t i f i e d and u n i n s u r e d d r i v e r of t h e P o n t i a c was l i a b l e f o r h i s i n j u r i e s ; t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o damages of $20,000; a n d , t h a t e i t h e r G l a c i e r General o r H a r t f o r d o r both must pay him t h i s sum under t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e i r respective policies. The d e f e n s e was d e n i a l of l i a b i l i t y on t h e p a r t of t h e d r i v e r o f t h e P o n t i a c , t o g e t h e r w i t h v a r i o u s p o l i c y d e f e n s e s under t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t ' ' endorsements on the respective policies. The S u l l i v a n c a s e came on f o r t r i a l b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y on A p r i l 2 9 , 1970. Immediately p r i o r t o t r i a l , a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e Sullivan case agreed t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t would t r y o n l y t h e i s s u e s of l i a b i l i t y of t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t t o S u l l i v a n and t h e damages S u l l i v a n incurred. The p a r t i e s a l s o a g r e e d t h a t a s e p a r a t e t r i a l would be h e l d t h e r e a f t e r i n which t h e p o l i c y d e f e n s e s o f t h e i n s u r e r s under t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage would be determined by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and judgment e n t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Following t r i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n . I n s u b s t a n c e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t n e g l i g e n t ; found t h a t S u l l i v a n was n o t c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t ; found t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t l i a b l e t o S u l l i v a n ; a n d , f i x e d S u l l i v a n ' s damages a t $20,000. T h e r e a f t e r , t h e M i l l e r c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y o f t h e u n i n s u r e d damages, on t h e m o t o r i s t t o M i l l e r and t h e e x t e n t of ~ i l l e r ' s b a s i s o f a n a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t was l i a b l e t o M i l l e r and f i x e d ~ i l l e r ' s damages a t $20,000. Thereafter, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered t h e t h r e e defendant i n s u r a n c e companies t o f i l e t h e i r motions and b r i e f s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r p o l i c y d e f e n s e s under t h e i r "uninsured motor i s t" en- dorsements. The i n s u r e r s d i d s o and a l s o f i l e d a s t i p u l a t i o n and a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s e n t e r e d i n t o by a l l p a r t i e s t o both actions. The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s t i p u l a t i o n and a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s s e t s f o r t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e policy provisions i n t h e p o l i c y of each i n s u r e r . I t provided t h a t G l a c i e r G e n e r a l had " t h e primary coverage" on t h e p o l i c e c a r involved i n t h e a c c i d e n t ; t h a t each p o l i c y provided l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y of $10,000 w i t h r e s p e c t t o each person and $20,000 w i t h r e s p e c t t o each a c c i d e n t under t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " endorsement ; a n d , t h a t S u l l i v a n had r e c e i v e d $14,051.05 i n medica 1 and compensation' b e n e f i t s under t h e workmen's Cornpansation Act and M i l l e r had r e c e i v e d $13,735.50. O November 6 , 1970, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d judgment n i n both c a s e s . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s was t h a t t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " p r o v i s i o n s i n each p o l i c y a u t h o r i z i n g a n of £ s e t of o t h e r i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s and workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s a g a i n s t l i a b i l i t y was void a s a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e i n s u r a n c e commissioner's approva 1 of t h e p o l i c y forms c o n t a i n i n g such o f f s e t s could n o t v a l i d a t e such v o i d provisions. The judgment h e l d G l a c i e r General and H a r t f o r d l i a b l e t o S u l l i v a n f o r $10,000 e a c h , and G l a c i e r General and S t a t e Farm l i a b l e t o M i l l e r i n t h e amount of $10,000 each. A l l defendants a p p e a l from t h i s c o n s o l i d a t e d judgment a g a i n s t them. The t h r e e b a s i c i s s u e s on a p p e a l may be summarized a s follows: 1. Should p l a i n t i f f s ' claims have been b a r r e d by r e a s o n of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law? 2. Are t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s o f f s e t t i n g workmen's com- pensa t i o n b e n e f i t s a g a i n s t "uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage void a s against public policy? 3. Do any o t h e r e x c l u s i o n s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e - p o l i c i e s p r e c l u d e l i a b i l i t y on t h e p a r t of any of t h e i n s u r e r s ? I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e f i r s t i s s u e f o r review,we f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e S u l l i v a n and M i l l e r c a s e s s e p a r a t e l y . D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n f i r s t t o t h e S u l l i v a n c a s e , we n o t e t h a t t h i s c a s e was t r i e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t wikhout a jury. Three w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f of t h e p l a i n t i f f : p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n ; O f f i c e r Tromley of t h e B u t t e P o l i c e Department; and B u t t e Chief of P o l i c e C l a r k . In addition, t h e deposi- t i o n of Ben F. B e n t l e y , t h e used c a r salesman a t t h e Leskovar Motors used c a r l o t , was a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e by s t i p u l a t i o n a s were r e c o r d s of medical expense and o t h e r s p e c i a l damages and f i v e photographs of t h e a c c i d e n t scene. Defendants c a l l e d no w i t n e s s e s but cross-examined t h e w i t n e s s e s of t h e p l a i n t i f f . The key f i n d i n g of f a c t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on t h e i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y r e a d s : "That a t about 6:30 A.M. on October 21, 1969, w h i l e i t was s t i l l d a r k , a C i t y of B u t t e p o l i c e p a t r o l c a r d r i v e n by p l a i n t i f f , John T. S u l l i v a n and occupied by William F. M i l l e r , a n o t h e r p o l i c e o f f i c e r , was proceeding n o r t h on South Arizona S t r e e t a t a speed of 15 t o 20 m.p.r. i n i t s own and proper l a n e of t r a f f i c when a 1968 Pontiac automobile crossed over t h e c e n t e r l i n e of s a i d Arizona s t r e e t from i t s own l a n e of t r a f f i c and s t r u c k head on t h e p o l i c e c a r operated by p l a i n t i f f . " The d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t and t h e r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s t o S u l l i v a n were proximately caused by t h e negligence of t h e u n i d e n t i f i e d and unknown m o t o r i s t , and t h a t S u l l i v a n was n o t c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . There i s no evidence s u p p o r t i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Pontiac automobile crossed over t h e c e n t e r l i n e of Arizona s t r e e t from i t s own l a n e of t r a f f i c and s t r u c k t h e p o l i c e c a r head-on. In f a c t t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t i t was moving a t a l l a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t , or t h a t i t was anything o t h e r than a n abandoned vehicle obstructing the s t r e e t . The u n c o n t r a d i c t e d evidence shows t h a t t h e doors of t h e Pontiac were found locked a t t h e time t h e f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t i n g p o l i c e o f f i c e r a r r i v e d a t t h e scene of t h e a c c i d e n t following h i s summons t h e r e ) by S u l l i v a n . The uncontradicted evidence a l s o shows t h e r e were no s k i d marks from t h e Pontiac on t h e pavement. It i s l i k e w i s e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d t h a t M i l l e r , t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r passenger i n t h e p o l i c e c a r , saw t h e Pontiac and shouted a warning. He was n o t c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by t h e p l a i n t i f f upon whom t h e burden of proof of n e g l i g e n c e of t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t r e s t e d , a l t h o u g h he was t h e one w i t n e s s who presumably could t e s t i f y a s t o whether t h e Pontiac was being d r i v e n o r whether i t was parked and abandoned a t t h e time of t h e a c c i d e n t . M i l l e r was a l i v e a t t h e time of t h e S u l l i v a n t r i a l , but i s now deceased. The evidence f u r t h e r shows t h e r e was no o t h e r t r a f f i c on t h e s t r e e t and t h a t t h e s t r e e t was wide enough t o permit passage of t h e p o l i c e c a r around any o b s t r u c t i o n , such a s t h e Pontiac automobile. The uncontradicted evidence f u r t h e r shows t h a t a t t h e time and p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t t h e s t r e e t was s t r a i g h t , t h e r e were overhead l i g h t s i l l u m i n a t i n g t h e s t r e e t , t h e h e a d l i g h t s of t h e p o l i c e v e h i c l e were on, i n good working o r d e r , and i l l u m i n a t e d t h e a r e a ahead. S u l l i v a n himself t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was looking s t r a i g h t ahead and t o t h e s i d e without d i s t r a c t i o n f o r a t l e a s t h a l f a block p r i o r t o t h e point of impact. Under such circumstances, p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n i s g u i l t y of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e a s a m a t t e r of law b a r r i n g any recovery by him. Whether t h e Pontiac was moving o r stopped, S u l l i v a n should have seen i t i n time t o avoid a n a c c i d e n t i n t h e e x e r c i s e of o r d i n a r y c a r e on h i s p a r t . It i s important t o n o t e t h a t h e r e t h e r e i s no evidence t h e Pontiac was moving a t a l l , much l e s s t h a t i t suddenly swerved i n h i s path w i t h o u t s u f f i c i e n t time t o enable him t o avoid t h e a c c i d e n t . In Autio v. M i l l e r , 92 Mont. 150, 165, 11 P.2d 1039, t h i s Court s a i d : "The d r i v e r must look ' n o t only s t r a i g h t ahead, oreo over, a person but l a t e r a l l y ahead' i s presumed t o s e e t h a t which he could s e e by looking.* He w i l l n o t be permitted t o s a y t h a t he did n o t s e e what he must have s e e n , had he looked, 1 a s M r . J u s t i c e Toole s a i d i n Grant v. Chicago, M.& St.Pau1 Ry. Co., 78 Mont. 97, 252 Pac. 382, 386. he duty t o keep a lookout i n cludes t h e duty t o s e e t h a t which i s i n p l a i n s i g h t . ' [ C i t a t i o n ] '' *** ** The f a i l u r e of p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n t o e x e r c i s e r e a s o n a b l e him c a r e f o r h i s own s a f e t y precludes any recovery bylagainst t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " h e r e i n . I n S u l l i v a n v. Northern P a c i f i c Railway Co., 109 Mont. 93, 108, 94 P.2d 651, we held: very person i s bound t o an a b s o l u t e duty t o e x e r c i s e h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e t o d i s c o v e r and avoid dangers t h a t may t h r e a t e n him. When, t h e r e f o r e , a p l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h e r i g h t of recovery on t h e ground of c u l p a b l e negligence of t h e d e f e n d a n t , he i s bound t o show t h a t he e x e r c i s e d h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e t o d i s c o v e r and avoid t h e danger, which he a l l e g e s was brought about by t h e n e g l i g e n c e of t h e defendant. ., '* * *" '1' A Montana c a s e d i r e c t l y i n p o i n t i s Boepple v . Mohalt, 101 Mont. 417, 435, 54 P.2d 857. In t h a t case t h e defendant's road g r a d e r was on t h e wrong s i d e of t h e road but i t was v i s i b l e and t h e r e was room f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f t o g e t p a s t i t . This Court held t h a t p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t a s a m a t t e r of law, r e v e r s e d i n favor of t h e defendant, and i n dismissing the action, said: he duty t o keep a lookout implies t h e duty t o s e e what i s i n p l a i n view, and t h e d r i v e r o t an automobile i s bound t o o p e r a t e h i s conveyance w i t h r e f e r e n c e , n o t only t o t h e p e d e s t r i a n s and c o n d i t i o n s he a c t u a l l y s e e s , but a l s o t o t h o s e he should s e e i n t h e e x e r c i s e of reasonable c a r e He [a d r i v e r ] could n o t escape t h e p e n a l t y of h i s negligence by saying t h a t he d i d n o t s e e t h a t which was i n p l a i n s i g h t . I l l * * *. F i n a l l y , i n H a l l v . United S t a t e s , 407 F.2d 849, a Montana c a s e decided by t h e United S t a t e s Court of Appeals, Ninth C i r c u i t , i n 1969, t h e p l a i n t i f f c o l l i d e d w i t h an A i r Force t r a c t o r t r a i l e r which n e g l i g e n t l y blocked o r o b s t r u c t e d t h e highway. The F e d e r a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was barred by h i s c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence i n d r i v i n g f a s t e r a t n i g h t than h i s l i g h t s would s a f e l y permit o r a f a i l u r e t o look, s i n c e t h e a d v e r s e v e h i c l e was on t h e highway and i n p l a i n s i g h t . Accordingly, t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n favor of p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n i s vacated and t h e a c t i o n dismissed. Turning our a t t e n t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f ~ i l l e r ' s a s e , t h e r e c i s no q u e s t i o n of c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e involved. There i s simply no b a s i s f o r imputing t h e negligence of p l a i n t i f f S u l l i v a n , t h e d r i v e r , t o M i l l e r , t h e passenger, nor i s t h e r e any evidence of c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence on t h e p a r t of M i l l e r h i m s e l f . of Accordingly, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i - n d i n g l l i a b i l i t y on t h e p a r t of t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t t o p l a i n t i f f M i l l e r i s a f f i r m e d . Whatever S u l l i v a n d i d o r f a i l e d t o do i n r e g a r d t o t h e a c c i d e n t cannot bar p l a i n t i f f ~ i l l e' s recovery h e r e i n . r The second i s s u e f o r review p r e s e n t s a n important q u e s t i o n relating to 1l uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage i n Montana. Stated broadly, t h e q u e s t i o n posed i s whether i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e f o r a n insurance company i n Montana t o p l a c e l i m i t a t i o n s i n i t s It unin- s u r e d m o t o r i s t r ' coverage which reduce o r e l i m i n a t e i t s l i a b i l i t y below t h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t s . S e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Motor v e h i c l e l i a b i l i t y p o l i c i e s t o i n c l u d e uninsured m o t o r i s t c o v e r a g e - - - r e j e c t i o n of coverage by i n s u r e d . N automobile l i a b i l i t y o r motor v e h i c l e l i a b i l i t y o p o l i c y i n s u r i n g a g a i n s t l o s s r e s u l t i n g from l i a b i l i t y imposed by law f o r b o d i l y i n j u r y o r d e a t h s u f f e r e d by any person a r i s i n g o u t of t h e ownership, maintena n c e , o r use of a motor v e h i c l e , s h a l l be d e l i v e r e d or issued f o r delivery i n t h i s s t a t e , with respect t o any motor v e h i c l e r e g i s t e r e d o r p r i n c i p a l l y garaged i n t h i s s t a t e , u n l e s s coverage i s provided t h e r e i n o r supplemental t h e r e t o , i n l i m i t s f o r bodily i n j u r y or d e a t h s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 53-422, under p r o v i s i o n s f i l e d w i t h and approved by t h e i n s u r a n c e commissioner, f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of persons i n s u r e d thereunder who a r e l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o recover damages from owners o r o p e r a t o r s of uninsured motor v e h i c l e s because of bodily i n j u r y , s i c k n e s s o r d i s e a s e , i n c l u d i n g d e a t h , r e s u l t i n g therefrom; provided, t h a t t h e named i n s u r e d s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o r e j e c t such coverage; and, provided f u r t h e r , t h a t u n l e s s t h e named i n s u r e d r e q u e s t s such coverage i n w r i t i n g , such coverage need n o t be provided i n o r supplementa 1 t o a renewal p o l i c y where t h e named insured had r e j e c t e d t h e coverage i n connection w i t h t h e p o l i c y p r e v i o u s l y i s s u e d t o him by t h e same i n s u r e r . " There i s a divergence of a u t h o r i t y i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o whether an insurance company may reduce i t s L i a b i l i t y under i t s uninsured motor i s t coverage below t h e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t by s u b s t r a c t i n g workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s received. Our r e a d i n g of s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, l e a d s us t o t h e conclusion t h a t i t s language i s both c l e a r and d i r e c t . That s e c t i o n s t a t e s t h a t no l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y can be i s s u e d f o r any motor v e h i c l e which i s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h i s s t a t e u n l e s s 11 unin- sured m o t o r i s t " coverage i s a l s o provided i n a minimum amount of $10,000, which s t a t u t o r y minimum i s f i x e d i n s e c t i o n 53-422, 1947. R.C.M. The b a s i c purpose of t h i s s t a t u t e i s obvious--- t o provide p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e automobile insurance p o l i c y h o l d e r a g a i n s t t h e r i s k of inadequate compensation f o r i n j u r i e s o r d e a t h caused by t h e n e g l i g e n c e of f i n a n c i a l l y i r r e s p o n s i b l e motorists. The l e g i s l a t i v e purpose behind t h e enactment of such s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s on "uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage i s e q u a l l y clear. It i s simply t o p l a c e t h e i n j u r e d policyholder i n t h e same p o s i t i o n he would have been i f t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t had l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e amount of p l a i n t i f f ' s recovery from "uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage cannot be reduced by any workmen s compensation b e n e f i t s r g e i v e d by him. In t h e M i l l e r c a s e , G l a c i e r c en era 1 ' s insurance p o l i c y contained "uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage; i t a p p l i e d h e r e because t h e p o l i c e c a r of t h e c i t y of B u t t e was being operated by i t s policemen i n t h e c o u r s e and scope of t h e i r employment, w i t h t h e permission of t h e c i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , p l a i n t i f f M i l l e r was a naded i n s u r e d under h i s own p o l i c y w i t h S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company t o t h e e x t e n t of coverage under t h e $10,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t endorsement t h e r e i n . The i n s u r e r s concede s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, does n o t e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e a deduction of workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s from t h e $10,000 coverage a f f o r d e d under t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage, but a r g u e i n s t e a d t h a t t h a t s e c t i o n a u t h o r i z e s t h e insurance commissioner t o approve t h e form of t h e i r p o l i c i e s c o n t a i n i n g such deductions and he has done s o . W cannot a g r e e w i t h i n s u r e r s ' p o s i t i o n . e W view t h e e i n t e n t and c o n s t r u c t i o n of s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, t o mean t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e simply a u t h o r i z e d t h e i n s u r a n c e commissioner t o approve t h o s e p o l i c i e s of insurance which complied w i t h t h e c l e a r terms of t h e s t a t u t e . I n approving i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t e , t h e commissioner undoubtedly exceeded h i s a u t h o r i t y and h i s approval i n nofi%idates provisions a t variance with t h i s s t a t u t e . This Court has previous l y d e c l a r e d void c e r t a i n c l a u s e s contained i n insurance p o l i c i e s which were a t v a r i a n c e w i t h a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s of t h i s s t a t e . See Dominici v . S t a t e Farm Mutual I n s . Co., 143 Mont. 406, 390 P.2d 806. I n Peterson v . S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s . Co., 238 Ore. 106, 393 P.2d 651, 655, we f i n d a s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e one now b e f o r e t h i s Court. The Oregon s t a t u t e on unin- sured m o t o r i s t coverage i s very s i m i l a r i n language t o our s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947. I n P e t e r s o n , t h e Oregon Supreme Court h e l d t h e i r s t a t u t e d i d n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e i n s u r a n c e commiss i o n e r t o approve an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y which permitted a deduction of workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s from uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage i n t h i s language: t By approving t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s h e r e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e Insurance Commissioner has made such a d e c i s i o n . The Commissioner's d e c i s i o n goes beyond t h e mere a p p r o v a l of t h e language o t forms d r a f t e d t o accomplish t h e b a s i c l e g i s l a t i v e purpose of t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e . I n s o doing, t h e Commissioner has a c t e d beyond t h e scope of h i s a u t h o r i t y , and t h e p r o v i s i o n of t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n question i s void." D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t h i r d i s s u e f o r review, defendant S t a t e Farm contends t h a t defendant G l a c i e r General i s t h e primary i n s u r e r under t h e agreed s t i p u l a t i o n , and where t h e G l a c i e r Genera 1 p o l i c y provides t h e s t a t u t o r y minimum coverage of $10,000, t h e r e i s no reason why S t a t e Farm should be r e q u i r e d t o pay a n a d d i t i o n a l $10,000 under i t s %ninsured m o t o r i s t t t coverage, over and above G l a c i e r ~ e n e r a l ' s l i a b i l i t y . The c l a u s e i n i t s p o l i c y upon which S t a t e Farm r e l i e s reads : 1t Other insurance: With r e s p e c t t o b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a n insured w h i l e occupying a n automobile n o t owned by t h e named i n s u r e d , t h e i n s u r a n c e under S e c t i o n 111 s h a l l apply only a s excess i n s u r a n c e over any o t h e r s i m i l a r insurance a v a i l a b l e t o such i n s u r e d and a p p l i c a b l e t o such automobile a s primary i n s u r a n c e , and t h i s insurance s h a l l then apply only i n t h e amount by which t h e l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y f o r t h i s coverage exceeds t h e a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t o f l i a b i l i t y of such o t h e r insurance. "Except a s provided i n t h e foregoing paragraph, i f t h e i n s u r e d has o t h e r s i m i l a r i n s u r a n c e a v a i l a b l e t o him and a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e damages s h a l l be deemed n o t t o exceed t h e h i g h e r of t h e app l i c a b l e l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y of t h i s i n s u r a n c e and such o t h e r i n s u r a n c e , and t h e company s h a l l n o t be l i a b l e f o r a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of any l o s s t o which t h i s Coverage a p p l i e s than t h e l i m i t o f l i a b i l i t y hereunder bears t o t h e sum of a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y o f t h i s insurance and such o t h e r insurance." This c o n t e n t i o n i s without m e r i t . In the f i r s t place, t h e s t a t u t o r y requirement of $10,000 "uninsured motorist'' coverage p r e s c r i b e s a minimum amount only and does n o t p u r p o r t t o f i x a s t a t u t o r y maximum. Secondly, M i l l e r bought and paid f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l "uninsured motor i s t" coverage a f f o r d e d by h i s own p o l i c y w i t h S t a t e Farm. Finally, the adjudicated L i a b i l i t y o f t h e "uninsured m o t o r i s t " t o M i l l e r i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s $20,000, which r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a t i o n t o both t h e $10,000 coverage of t h e "primary i n s u r e r ' 2 l a c i e r General and t h e $10,000 coverage o f t h e "excess i n s u r e r " S t a t e Farm, t o s a t i s f y such l i a b i l i t y . The n o n d e d u c t i b i l i t y o f o t h e r insurance b e n e f i t s a p p l i e s f o r t h e same reasons t h a t workmen's b e n e f i t s a r e n o t d e d u c t i b l e . The m a j o r i t y of j u r i s d i c t i o n s o u t s i d e Montana d e c l a r e void t h o s e c l a u s e s which purport t o l i m i t l i a b i l i t y n o t e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . tofore cited. The leading d e c i s i o n i s P e t e r s o n , h e r e - W r e f e r a l s o t o Bryant v. S t a t e Farm Mutual e Automobile I n s . Co., 205 Va. 897, 140 S.E.2d 817,819, wherein t h e Supreme Court of V i r g i n i a inva l i d a ted a n "other insurance" c l a u s e a s being i n v i o l a t i o n of V i r g i n i a ' s "uninsured m o t o r i s t " statute. I n Bryant, t h e V i r g i n i a Supreme Court s t a t e d : "These c a s e s a l l e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c o n t r o l l i n g instrument i s t h e s t a t u t e and t h a t p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e insurance p o l i c y t h a t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e requirements of t h e s t a t u t e , e i t h e r by adding t o o r t a k i n g from i t s requirements, a r e void and i n e f f e c t i v e . II I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d e c i s i o n of Simpson v . S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 318 F.Supp. 1152 (1970), i s important. There t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court h e l d t h a t under Indiana law an i n s u r e r was n o t e n t i t l e d t o reduce o r l i m i t i t s !'uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage by deduction of payments from o t h e r s i m i l a r i n s u r a n c e even though c l a u s e s c o n t a i n i n g such p r o v i s i o n s had been approved by t h e s t a t e commissioner of insurance. Simpson i n d i - c a t e s how t h e m i n o r i t y l i n e of a u t h o r i t y holding such c l a u s e s v a l i d emerged from t h e tenuous precedent of d e c i s i o n s decided b e f o r e t h e enactment of s t a t e s t a t u t e s s i m i l a r t o our s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947. A d d i t i o n a l l y , defendants contend t h a t t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a g a i n s t them i n t h e amount of $10,000 each has t h e e f f e c t o f g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f s a "double recovery" i n view of t h e workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s p r e v i o u s l y awarded. A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , i t has been h e l d t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t a person r e c e i v e s from a c o l l a t e r a l source payments which have a tendency t o m i t i g a t e t h e consequences of h i s i n j u r y , which he s u f f e r e d a s a r e s u l t of d e f e n d a n t ' s t o r t , may n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e d by t h e defendant a s a n o f f s e t t o damages which defendant would o t h e r w i s e be r e q u i r e d t o pay. There has always been a wide- spread j u d i c i a l r e f u s a l t o c r e d i t t o t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e wrongdoer money r e c e i v e d i n r e p a r a t i o n of t h e v i c t i m ' s i n j u r y from s o u r c e s o t h e r than t h e wrongdoer h i m s e l f . See Maxwell, The C o l l a t e r a l Source Rule i n t h e American Law of Damages, 46 Minn.Law Review 669; Annotations, 75 ALR2d 885 and 4 ALR3d 535. It i s axiomatic t h a t b e n e f i t s payable under Montana's workmen's Compensation Act do n o t r e p r e s e n t f u l l payment of damages occasioned by t h e i n j u r y . For example, Montana 's Work- men's Compensation Act provides only f o r payment of a percentage of t h e i n j u r e d workman's a c t u a l wage l o s s i n most c a s e s ; nor i s t h e r e any compensation payable f o r pain and s u f f e r i n g , i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e workman's e s t a b l i s h e d c o u r s e of l i f e , nor any o t h e r elements of g e n e r a l damages ; workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s f o r d i s a b i l i t y , p a r t i a l o r t o t a l , a r e l i m i t e d t o s t a t u t o r y maximums w i t h o u t regard t o a d d i t i o n a l damages a c t u a l l y s u f f e r e d . Accordingly where, a s h e r e , t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e v i c t i m has r e c e i v e d a "double r e c o v e r y r Y o r t h e damages he s u f f e r e d , t h e i n s u r e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n i s nothing but a puff of smoke. W s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t o u t , however, t h a t nothing s a i d e h e r e i n i s t o be construed a s a u t h o r i z i n g recovery of any amount i n excess of t h e t o t a l damages s u f f e r e d r e g a r d l e s s of t h e number of i n s u r e r s involved o r t h e a g g r e g a t e amount of coverage a f f o r d e d . Such a r e n o t t h e f a c t s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , however. The judgment i n f a v o r of t h e e s t a t e of William F. M i l l e r a g a i n s t G l a c i e r General Assurance Company and S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company i n t h e amount of $10,000 a g a i n s t each defendant i s a f f i r m e d . The judgment i n favor of John T . S u l l i v a n a g a i n s t G l a c i e r General Assurance Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company i s r e v e r s e d and dismissed. Associate J u s t i c e Assoc 4t e Justices.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.