VELTE v ALLSTATE INS CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14574 IN THE S P E E COUHT O THE STATE O rnrnANA UR M F F 1979 C N I J. VELTE et al. O NE , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -VS- ALLsI'ATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: m J. Dolve, Jr., Billings, Wntana Calvin A.Calton, Billings, Wntana Rodd HamMn argued, Billings, mntana E For Respondent: , Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, Anderson, Symnes, B plbntana Richard F. Cebull, Billings, Wntana Subsnitted: Decided: Filed: T .'" i' ' , - March 19, 1979 -- -- APR 1 7 1979 Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal brought by the survivors and the personal representative of the estate of Oscar F. Johnson. Johnson was killed as the result of an automobile collision in Billings, Montana, in July 1976. At the time of the accident, Johnson was a passenger in an automobile driven by John Schaefer and insured by defendant Allstate Insurance Company. Schaefer's policy with Allstate had a liability limit of $10,000 as well as an uninsured motorist endorsement. The other automobile involved in the accident was not insured. Johnson's heirs and personal representative filed claims with Allstate, which in turn offered to pay the claimants the policy limit of $10,000, applicable to the injury or death of one person. The heirs and personal representative contended they were entitled to more compensation, arguing that the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, at section 53-438, R.C.M. 1947, now section 61-6-103 MCA, required the insurer to pay at least $25,000 in compensation for Oscar Johnson's death. At Allstate's suggestion, appellants commenced a declaratory action in the District Court, Yellowstone County, seeking to have the policy limits declared to be $25,000 rather than $10,000. The ~istrictCourt ruled in favor of defendant Allstate's motion to dismiss on September 7, 1978. In a memorandum accompanying that order, the District Court stated the issue presented to it as whether the law required liability coverage of at least $25,000, regardless of the agreed-upon terms of the policy: "The c o m p l a i n t s e e k s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Montana l a w r e q u i r e s motor v e h i c l e l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e f o r b o d i l y i n j u r y t o be i n t h e sum of $25,000 r e g a r d l e s s of any lesser s t a t e d l i m i t s i n t h e i s s u e d p o l i c y ($10,000 i n t h i s c a s e ) . . ." On a p p e a l t h e h e i r s and p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r e s e n t a new theory--namely, t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 33-23-201 MCA, e n t i t l e s them t o g r e a t e r compensation t h a n t h e s t a t e d l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s of t h e A l l s t a t e p o l i c y . A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4403 r e q u i r e s a n i n s u r e r t o p r o v i d e a t l e a s t $25,000 p e r p e r s o n and $50,000 p e r a c c i d e n t o f u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t c o v e r a g e and t h a t t h e y a r e t h e r e f o r e e n t i t l e d t o $15,000 of t h a t c o v e r a g e under t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t endorsement of J o h n s o n ' s p o l i c y w i t h Allstate. W conclude t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o r r e c t l y e d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o i t , and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s may n o t r a i s e , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , t h e i s s u e of whet h e r t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s under Schaefer's policy. A. A p p e l l a n t ' s s t a t u t o r y l i m i t s arqument. The i s s u e o f whether a n a u t o m o b i l e owner must have a p a r t i c u l a r amount of l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e o r l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e c o v e r i n g p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s h a s been b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s . I n N o r t h e r n Assurance Company o f America v . Truck I n s u r a n c e Exchange ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 132, 439 P.2d 760, t h e i s s u e was whether a n e x c l u s i o n i n a l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y p o l i c y of t h e Motor V e h i c l e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t . The Court reasoned t h a t t h e exclusion w a s " n o t v i o l a t i v e of p u b l i c p o l i c y " b e c a u s e t h e law r e q u i r e d l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e i n o n l y c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d i n s t a n c e s , and t h a t a p o l i c y which t h e owner v o l u n t a r i l y o b t a i n e d w a s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e c o v e r - a g e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Act. Mont. a t 136-37, 151 439 P.2d a t 763. I n B o l d t v. S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s u r a n c e Co. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 337, 443 P.2d 33, a n i n j u r e d p l a i n t i f f s o u g h t t o have a c l a u s e i n a l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y d e c l a r e d v o i d because it c o n f l i c t e d w i t h t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t . The C o u r t a g a i n r u l e d t h a t t h e A c t ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s " a r e n o t a b s o l u t e b u t a r e a p p l i c a b l e under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s and a r e s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s and e x c e p t i o n s . " Mont. a t 341, 443 P.2d a t 35. 151 The C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e l a w r e q u i r e d a n a u t o m o b i l e owner t o c a r r y l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e a s p r o o f of f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n o n l y c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and o t h e r w i s e " i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o p o s t proof o f f u t u r e f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t a l l . " Mont. a t 343, 443 P.2d a t 36. 151 S i n c e a n owner may n o t b e required t o purchase l i a b i l i t y insurance a t a l l , t h e Court concluded t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o p o l i c i e s i s s u e d and c e r t i f i e d a s proof of f i n a n a c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y had no a p p l i c a t i o n t o p o l i c i e s which owners v o l u n t a r i l y obtain. 1 5 1 Mont. a t 343-44, 443 P.2d a t 36. See a l s o , U n i v e r s a l U n d e r w r i t e r s I n s u r a n c e Co. v . S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s u r a n c e Co. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 , 531 P.2d 668, 672. Appellants argued b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t s e v e r a l amendments t o s e c t i o n 53-438 changed t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e making i t a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y p o l i c i e s i s s u e d i n Montana. They make no mention o f t h a t argument i n t h e i r b r i e f s on a p p e a l , however. Under t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d i n N o r t h e r n Assurance and B o l d t , t h e argument t h a t t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t r e q u i r e s t h e i n s u r e r t o i s s u e l i a b i l i t y p o l i c i e s w i t h no l e s s t h a n $25,000 c o v e r a g e must b e r e j e c t e d . In t h i s case, a s i n N o r t h e r n Assurance and B o l d t , t h e owner v o l u n t a r i l y obtained t h e l i a b i l i t y coverage. There i s no s t a t u t o r y b a s i s upon which t o r e q u i r e t h i s v o l u n t a r y p o l i c y t o b e c o n s t r u e d a s p r o v i d i n g more t h a n t h e $10,000 c o v e r a g e which i t s t e r m s show. B. A p p e l l a n t s ' Uninsured M o t o r i s t Argument. A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4403 r e q u i r e s t h e i n s u r e r t o p r o v i d e a t l e a s t $25,000/50,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t c o v e r a g e a l o n g w i t h any l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y i t i s s u e s , and t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o $15,000 compensation from t h e o w n e r ' s uninsured m o t o r i s t policy with A l l s t a t e . Their position i s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e owner had o n l y $10,000 of l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e , h e was u n i n s u r e d t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between h i s l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e and t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t c o v e r a g e r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e . A r e v i e w of t h e b r i e f s of b o t h p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d i c a t e s t h i s argument i s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s p r e s e n t e d w i t h , and d e c i d e d o n l y , t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t ' s coverage requirements a p p l i e d t o t h e owner's l i a b i l i t y policy. T h e r e f o r e , a p p e l l a n t s may n o t now raise t h e i s s u e of uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage. I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a p a r t y "may n o t change h i s t h e o r y on a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t from t h a t advanced i n t h e t r i a l court." Chamberlain v . Evans ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 591 P.2d 237, 240, 36 St.Rep. S t u r d e v a n t v . M i l l s (19781, 925, 35 St.Rep. 839, 842. 419, 423-24. - Mont. - Mont . I See a l s o , , 580 P.2d 923, A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e , however, t h a t t h e theory of uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage p r e s e n t s a quest i o n of law o n l y , and t h e r e f o r e need n o t b e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n advance of t h e a p p e a l . They u r g e f u r t h e r t h a t a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n p r e s e n t s a unique s i t u a t i o n , because such an a c t i o n i s brought s o l e l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g i s s u e s of law, and t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h e s e i s s u e s - d e novo. The Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments A c t , s e c t i o n 93-8907, 1947, now s e c t i o n 27-8-312 R.C.M. MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a l l 1 o r d e r s , judgments and d e c r e e s under t h i s a c t may b e reviewed a s o t h e r o r d e r s , judgments and d e c r e e s . " Only one Montana d e c i s i o n d i r e c t l y c o n s t r u e s s e c t i o n 93-8907 and t h a t d e c i s i o n concerns a p p e l l a t e review of f a c t u a l findings: . . . " I n a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s i s s u e s of f a c t i n t h e same manner a s i s s u e s of f a c t i n o t h e r pro1947. W e c e e d i n g s . S e c t i o n 93-8909, R.C.M. r e v i e w t h e a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e same a s i n o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . S e c t i o n 93-8907, R.C.M. 1947." S t a t e Highway Commission v . West G r e a t F a l l s Flood C o n t r o l and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 155 Mont. 1 5 7 , 171, 468 P.2d 753, 761. C o u r t s i n o t h e r Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments Act j u r i s d i c t i o n s have c o n s i d e r e d more p r e c i s e l y t h e i s s u e of whether a n a p p e l l a n t h a s more l a t i t u d e t o a l t e r h i s t h e o r y on a p p e a l i n a d e c l a r a t o r y a c t i o n t h a n i n o t h e r t y p e s of c i v i l a c t i o n s , and have concluded t h a t h e d o e s n o t . Board o f S u p e r v i s o r s o f F a i r f a x County v . W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33, 39 n . 3 ; C i t y of S t . L o u i s v . M i s s o u r i Commission on Human R i g h t s (Mo. 1 9 7 4 ) , 517 S.W.2d 65, 71; Crowe v . Wheeler (Colo. 1 9 6 8 ) , 439 P.2d 50, 53; Goldberg v . Valve C o r p o r a t i o n o f America ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 89 Ill.App.2d N.E.2d 85, 90. 383, 233 I n each of t h e s e d e c i s i o n s t h e c o u r t s r u l e d t h a t t h e y would n o t d e t e r m i n e l e g a l i s s u e s which t h e p a r t i e s f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , e i t h e r by o b j e c t i o n o r by p l e a d i n g s . I t i s c l e a r t h a t a p p e l l a n t s h e r e have changed t h e i r t h e o r y on a p p e a l . A t t h e D i s t r i c t Court l e v e l , they sought a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t s e c t i o n 53-438, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e d t h e i n s u r e r t o p r o v i d e S c h a e f e r w i t h $25,000 o f motor v e h i c l e l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e ( p a r a g r a p h s V - V I I o f c o m p l a i n t , and p a r a g r a p h 1 o f p r a y e r f o r judgment). On a p p e a l , t h e y s t a t e a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t t h e o r y , i n v o l v i n g a n u n i n s u r e d mot o r i s t claim: "Because A l l s t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e e q u a l l i n g t h e minimum amount s e t a t s e c t i o n 53-438, R.C.M. [1947], (Supp. 1 9 7 7 ) , S c h a e f f e r s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a n u n i n s u r e d d r i v e r and V e l t e , e t a l . , are entitled to r e c o v e r u n d e r t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t s e c t i o n - -e A l l s t a t e of t h policy." (Emphasis added.) The r u l e a p p l i e d t o new t h e o r i e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s t h e same f o r a c t i o n s b r o u g h t under t h e D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment A c t a s i t i s f o r o t h e r c i v i l a c t i o n s . Therefore, w e w i l l n o t determine a p p e l l a n t s ' uninsured m o t o r i s t claim. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: Q4-45 ustices

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.