Butterfield v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co.9/30/2004
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: October 14, 2003
Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and RUDMAN, DANA, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.
Dissenting: CLIFFORD and ALEXANDER, JJ.
[ ] Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co. appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Humphrey, J.) in favor of Gregory L. Butterfield, on three counts of Butterfield's five-count complaint. Norfolk argues that the court erred by holding that provisions of the automobile insurance policy, issued by Norfolk, violate Maine's uninsured motorist statute, 24-A M.R.S.A. ยง 2902(1) (2000), impermissibly limiting Gregory's recovery to injury or damages sustained by persons named in the contract. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
[ ] This case presents a narrow, yet important, question. Previously, we have held that when an uninsured motorist policy tracks the language in Maine's uninsured motorist statute, liability extends to cover not only named insureds, but any individual for whom a named insured is legally entitled to bring a claim for damages caused by an uninsured motorist. Jack v. Tracy, 1999 ME 13, 722 A.2d 869. The Superior Court addressed the question that necessarily follows: may an insurer use limiting language in an uninsured motorist policy, restricting its coverage to claims brought by named insureds, for injuries sustained by named insureds? We now hold that insurers may not limit uninsured motorist coverage by adding restrictive language to their uninsured motorist policies.
I. BACKGROUND
[ ] Gregory's twenty-one-year-old daughter, Brandy, died in an automobile accident. Both the vehicle in which Brandy was a passenger and the driver of the other vehicle were uninsured. Gregory is a named insured on an automobile insurance policy issued by Norfolk. He filed a claim with Norfolk for all damages he was legally entitled to recover due to the death of Brandy. Norfolk denied Gregory's claims, citing language in his policy that limited uninsured motorist recovery to injuries sustained by "insured persons," or family members within the policy's definition. The policy defines family members as persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, who reside with the insured. Thus, because Brandy did not reside with Gregory, she was not a named insured under his policy. Gregory sought a declaratory judgment that Norfolk was liable.
II. DISCUSSION
[ ] " e look first to the plain meaning of the statutory language as a means of effecting the legislative intent." State v. Shepley, 2003 ME 70, 12, 822 A.2d 1147, 1151 (quoting Pennings v. Pennings, 2002 ME 3, 13, 786 A.2d 622, 627) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Unless the statute itself discloses a contrary intent, words in a statute must be given their plain, common, and ordinary meaning, such as [people] of common intelligence would usually ascribe to them." State v. Vainio, 466 A.2d 471, 474 (Me. 1983). An insurance policy incorporates all the relevant mandatory provisions of the statute pursuant to which the policy was drafted. Skidgell v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 1997 ME 149, 7, 697 A.2d 831, 833. The interpretation of section 2902(1) is a question of law, which we review de novo. See State v. McLaughlin, 2002 ME 55, 5, 794 A.2d 69, 72.
[ ] Maine law requires that any automobile insurance policy, insuring against liability, include coverage for "the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured, underinsured or hit-and-run motor vehicles, for bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting from the ownership, maintenance or
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|