SAYERS v SAFECO INS CO OF AMERIC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-436 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 DONALD W. SAYERS, et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial ~istrict, In and for the County of Silver Bow. Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Gene A. Picotte, Clancy, Montana For Respondent: D. L. Holland, Butte, Montana Corette Law Firm, Butte, Montana Henningsen, Purcell & Genzberger, Butte, Montana Kaylene M. Rubick, Richmond, California Anderson, Brown Law Firm, Billings, Montana William N. Geagan, Butte, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 8, 1981 Decided: May 26, 1981 Filed: MAY 2 6 1 Q 9 r # u 9.-1 ' v -- Clerk J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e Company ( S a f e c o ) a p p e a l s from a n a d v e r s e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow County. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o a b i f u r c a t e d p r o c e e d i n g and s u b m i t t e d two i s s u e s f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n , r e s e r v i n g t h e r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l on damages i f necessary. 1. The i s s u e s s u b m i t t e d were: Whether o r n o t t h e p l a i n t i f f , Donald S a y e r s , was, a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t , "occupying" t h e a u t o m o b i l e owned by Gary J . G a l e t t i w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e term "occupying" a s d e f i n e d i n t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d t o G a l e t t i by S a f e c o . 2. Whether S a y e r s may s t a c k t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y p r o v i d e d by p o l i c i e s i s s u e d by S a f e c o t o G a l e t t i on a u t o m o b i l e s o t h e r t h a n t h e a u t o m o b i l e S a y e r s w a s "occupying" a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i d e d Sayers- was' (1) "occupying1' t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e and ( 2 ) e n t i t l e d t o s t a c k t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y on t h e S a f e c o p o l i c i e s c o v e r i n g automobiles not involved i n the accident. W e concur w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Donald S a y e r s was i n j u r e d i n a n a c c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g t h r e e c a r s , one o f which was owned by C h a r l e s Storm. The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d October 4 , 1978, on Kaw S t r e e t i n B u t t e , Montana. Storm had a s k e d S a y e r s t o tune-up h i s 1.966 Mercury automobile. S a y e r s completed t h e tune-up and a d v i s e d Storm he s h o u l d r u n t h e e n g i n e t o c l e a n t h e c a r b u r e t o r . Storm a g r e e d and l e f t t o buy some g a s o l i n e . However, t h e v e h i c l e service station. H e walked r a n o u t of g a s b e f o r e h e reached a / t h e s h o r t d i s t a n c e back, o b t a i n e d a c a n of g a s o l i n e and b a t t e r y jumper c a b l e s from S a y e r s and r o d e back t o h i s s t a l l e d v e h i c l e w i t h a man named George Y a t e s . They w e r e u n a b l e t o s t a r t S t o r m ' s c a r and Storm r e t u r n e d f o r S a y e r s ' help. S a y e r s , Storm and Gary J . G a l e t t i t h e n d r o v e t o S t o r m ' s c a r i n G a l e t t i ' s 1972 C h e v r o l e t Suburban i n t e n d i n g t o u s e t h e v e h i c l e t o jump-start the car. G a l e t t i parked t e n t o twelve f e e t i n f r o n t of and f a c i n g S t o r m ' s c a r t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e u s e o f h i s v e h i c l e ' s b a t t e r y and t h e jumper c a b l e s . gasoline A f t e r t h e men g o t o u t , Storm poured some o f t h e . / i n t o h i s t a n k , g o t i n h i s c a r and w a i t e d t o t u r n t h e i g n i t i o n k e y . S a y e r s was s t a n d i n g between t h e v e h i c l e s , l e a n i n g u n d e r t h e hood o f S t o r m ' s c a r f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p r i m i n g t h e c a r b u r e t o r w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g g a s i n t h e c a n , w h e n a c a r d r i v e n by Kaylene Rubick s t r u c k t h e r e a r o f S t o r m ' s c a r p r o p e l l i n g i t forward. S a y e r s was p i n n e d between t h e G a l e t t i and Storm v e h i c l e s a n d was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d . Kaylene Rubick was u n i n s u r e d , however, S a y e r s , Storm and G a l e t t i had t h e f o l l o w i n g u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t (UM) coverage: Insured Insurer UM L i m i t (1) a y e r s S Automobile C l u b $25,000 I n s u r a n c e Co. ( 2 ) G a l e t t i S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e $25,000 $25,000 A l l s t a t e Ins. (3)Storm No. o f vehicles Total 2 $50,000 2 3 $50,000 $75,000 S a f e c o c o n t e n d s S a y e r s was n o t " o c c u p y i n g " t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e under t h e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n . Safeco supports i t s c o n t e n t i o n w i t h numerous c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s which have c o n s t r u e d t h e components of t h e s e e m i n g l y u n i v e r s a l i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n of " o c c u p y i n g " which by p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n was " i n o r upon o r e n t e r i n g i n t o o r a l i g h t i n g from." The cases c i t e d by S a f e c o c o n t a i n a common e l e m e n t of p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i n s u r e d v e h i c l e a s t h e b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g coverage. S a f e c o c o n t e n d s S a y e r s w a s n o t "oc- cupying" t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e a s a m a t t e r of law b e c a u s e he w a s a t l e a s t t e n f e e t from t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . The " p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t " t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether one i s a n o c c u p a n t i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e under Montana law. C o u r t h a s developed a " r e a s o n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n " t e s t . This The i s s u e h e r e i s whether S a y e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n j u r y w e r e s o r e a s o n a b l y connected t o t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e t h a t , under t h e law, S a y e r s c o u l d b e s a i d t o be a n o c c u p a n t w i t h i n t h e p o l i c y ' s meaning. Nelson v. Iowa Mut. I n s . Co. ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 82, 515 P.2d 362. I n Nelson, a n e x e c u t o r b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e c e d e n t ' s a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r e r f o r payment of f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s under t h e d e c e d e n t ' s p o l i c y . The d e c e d e n t ' s c a r had s l i p p e d o f f a n i c y c o u n t r y r o a d d u r i n g a ground b l i z z a r d . t e m p e r a t u r e was e i g h t d e g r e e s below z e r o . The After leaving her c a r , t h e d e c e d e n t proceeded 269 f e e t a l o n g a f e n c e and f e l l i n t o an i r r i g a t i o n ditch. She a t t e m p t e d t o c r a w l back, b u t d i e d of e x p o s u r e 143 f e e t from t h e c a r . The i n s u r e r r e f u s e d payment of t h e f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s b e c a u s e t h e d e c e d e n t was n o t occupying t h e i n s u r e d a u t o m o b i l e . W e held the d e c e d e n t was "occupying" t h e v e h i c l e and, t h u s , was i n s u r e d under t h e p o l i c y . I n Nelson, t h i s C o u r t , w h i l e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e r e s u l t , c i t e d C a r t a v . P r o v i d e n c e Washington Indemnity Company ( 1 9 5 6 ) r 143 Conn. 372, 122 A.2d 734, 736, and a g r e e d w i t h t h e C o n n e c t i c u t c o u r t t h a t " [ s ] ome r e a s o n a b l e l e n g t h of time must be allowed a p e r s o n , a f t e r g e t t i n g o u t , f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f a c t s which c a n r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d from t h o s e i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . " The s t a n d a r d e n u n c i a t e d i n Nelson i s whether t h e " a c t i v i t y [ i s ] r e a s o n a b l y c a r r i e d o u t and [ i s ] r e a s o n a b l y connected w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e vehicle." 515 P.2d a t 364. S a y e r s r o d e i n t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e f o r t h e s i n g l e purp o s e of j u m p - s t a r t i n g battery. the disabled c a r using G a l e t t i ' s H i s a t t e m p t e d a s s i s t a n c e was u n d e n i a b l y d e p e n d e n t upon and t h u s r e a s o n a b l y c o n n e c t e d t o t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e . A t t h e moment t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t s t r u c k t h e r e a r of t h e d i s a b l e d v e h i c l e , S a y e r s had n o t completed t h e c o n t e m p l a t e d jump-start. Consequently, w e h o l d S a y e r s was "occupying" t h e Galetti vehicle within the policy definition. S a f e c o n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t i f S a y e r s i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be i n s u r e d , he should n o t be allowed t o " s t a c k " 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 under t h e p o l i c i e s f o r which he p a i d no premium. S a f e c o concedes Kemp v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. , - Mont. - 601 P.2d 20, 36 St.Rep. (1979), 1381, allowed s t a c k i n g where t h e d e c e d e n t had n o t been t h e p o l i c y h o l d e r . I n Kemp, t h e r e w e r e two i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s . One p o l i c y was i s s u e d t o t h e h o s t d r i v e r c o v e r i n g two v e h i c l e s , and a second was i s s u e d t o t h e d e c e d e n t ' s p a r e n t s c o v e r i n g t h r e e v e h i c l e s . S e p a r a t e premiums f o r t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t p r o t e c t i o n s were p a i d under t h e p o l i c i e s and t h e p o l i c y h o l d e r s , n o t t h e d e c e d e n t , p a i d t h e premiums. There w e h e l d : " I n a p p l y i n g Montana law, w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverages a r e t o be ' s t a c k e d ' ; t h a t i s , i n p o l i c i e s of i n s u r a n c e which c o v e r two o r more v e h i c l e s , i f a s e p a r a t e premium h a s been charged and c o l l e c t e d on e a c h v e h i c l e f o r uninsured v e h i c l e coverage, t h e insured i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r under 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 sums found l e g a l l y r e c o v e r a b l e up t o t h e a g g r e g a t e sum o f t h e c o v e r a g e s on a l l t h e motor v e h i c l e s s o insured. S u l l i v a n v . Doe ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 50, 495 P.2d 193; Mountain West Farm Bureau v . Neal (I-976), 169 Mont. 317, 547 P.2d 79; C h a f f e e v . U.S. F i d . & Guar. Co., e t a l . (1979) , Mont., 591 P.2d 1 1 0 2 , 36 St.Rep. 3 9 8 . " 601 P.2d a t 24. S a f e c o c o n t e n d s o n l y a n i n s u r e d who pays t h e premiums f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o v e r a g e should be a l l o w e d t o s t a c k , c i t i n g s e v e r a l o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t have s o h e l d . n o t persuaded by t h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d . The r u l e of Kemp and the authorities cited therein control. s u r e d a s d e f i n e d by t h e p o l i c y . W e are S a y e r s was a n i n - Under t h e s e f a c t s t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o d i s t i n g u i s h between p e r s o n s i n s u r e d and p o l i c y h o l d e r s who have a c t u a l l y p a i d premiums. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s t a c k i n g l i e s n o t i n who h a s p a i d f o r t h e e x t r a prot e c t i o n , b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n h a s been p u r c h a s e d . The b e n e f i t s f l o w t o a l l p e r s o n s i n s u r e d . The judgment of 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 concur: e
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.
