 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byers v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.11/21/2003
rincipal location of the insured risk is not readily apparent." Id. at 656.
Auto-Owners argues that the question is simply which state's law should apply to the construction of this particular insurance contract including all the risks i.e., the majority of covered vehicles, rather than this specific insured risk. Auto-Owners points out that it is a Tennessee Corporation with Tennessee as its principal place of business and that the contract was underwritten and issued in Tennessee. Auto-Owners contends the policy should obviously be interpreted according to Tennessee law since the insurance contract in question was negotiated, made and entered into in the state of Tennessee.
Auto-Owners does not cite to comment f of Section 193 of the Restatement, a comment which we find to be particularly noteworthy. Comment f deals with multiple risk policies and notes that:
A special problem is presented by multiple risk policies which insure against risks located in several states. A single policy may, for example, insure dwelling houses located in states X, Y and . . . .
Presumably, the courts would be inclined to treat such a case, at least with respect to most issues, as if it involved three policies, each insuring an individual risk. So, if the house located in state X were damaged by fire, it is thought that the court would determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the policy, at least with respect to most issues, in accordance with the local law of X.
In Crown Center , the Western District specifically found that an analysis of comment f was warranted in situations where, as here, one policy covered varied risks in several locations. 716 S.W.2d at 358-59. The court stated that the Restatement approach would treat each insured risk as though it were insured by a separate policy and would apply the law of the state where the risk was located. Id . Such an analysis makes sense as both a practical matter and as a policy matter. It would be unreasonable in every choice of law determination to analyze the casualty policy, mathematically determine where the majority of policies are issued by that company, and then follow that particular state' ;s law. As the court in Hartzler later found, the general principles set forth in
Section 188 apply over the specific principles found in comment a to Section 193 only when "the principal location of the insured risk is not readily apparent." Hartzler , 881 S.W.2d at 656. Therefore, in this matter, the principal location of the risk, Honl's van, was Arkansas.
Additionally, Auto-Owners contends that when an action is brought by or against an individual or entity who is not a party to the insurance contract, the Section 193 "most significant relationship test," rather than the principal location of the insured risk analysis, should be applied. Auto-Owners maintains that, pursuant to Hartzler , only the parties to the insurance contract are subject to the provisions of Section 193, and cites Gilmore v. Attebery , 899 S.W.2d 164 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995), in support of this argument.
Gilmore, however, is inapplicable to the matter at hand. Gilmore was a subrogation case in which the insurance company brought suit in its insureds' names to seek reimbursement for the money it had paid the named plaintiffs under its PIP coverage pursuant to the Kansas no-fault insurance system. In Gilmore , the motor-vehicle accident at issue occurred in Missouri, even though the named plaintiffs were residents of Kansas and the defendant tortfeasor lived in Illinois. Additionally, the contract of insurance had been purchased in Kansas through a Kansas agent and, the car was garaged in Kansas. While
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|