 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shaw v. Allstate Insurance Co.8/30/2005
that Watson was not an insured resident operator under Stellingwerf's policy, and thus, Allstate had no liability. From this order, Etchison appeals. After filing his notice of appeal, Shaw settled with Allstate and was dismissed from the action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a summary judgment order de novo. Bonilla v. University of Montana, 2005 MT 183, 10, 328 Mont. 41, 10, 116 P.3d 823, 10. Our review of summary judgment is whether the district court correctly determined that no genuine issue of material fact existed and whether it applied the law correctly. Bonilla, 11-12.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Allstate on Etchinson's claim for coverage under Stellingwerf's policy?
The District Court determined, relying on the March 7, 2001, order of Magistrate Judge Richard W. Anderson in the case of Hall v. Allstate Ins. Co. (D. Mont. 2001) 29 M.F.R. 1 (00-CV-82), that Stellingwerf's failure to give notice to Allstate that Watson was a resident operator violated a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. In Hall, the policy at issue required the insured to give Allstate notice of all resident drivers of the household as a condition of coverage. Hall and Hirsch were common-law husband and wife, but after separation and the filing of a dissolution action, they contacted Allstate to remove Hall and his vehicle from their joint policy, which became Hirsch's sole policy. The parties later attempted reconciliation and resumed living together, but Allstate was not notified of Hall's return to resident status. Hall was then involved in an accident and sought coverage under Hirsch's underinsured coverage. Relying on the policy's requirement that " o properly insure your auto, you must promptly notify us when you change your address or when any resident operator insured by your policy are added or deleted," the United States District Court reasoned that the policy "clearly and unambiguously required notice to Allstate of any other resident operators . . . was more than a technicality, since both coverage and premiums were based upon the information Allstate received from its insured . . ." and held that there was no coverage under the policy for Hall's accident. Hall, 29 M.F.R. at 5 (emphasis omitted).
The District Court noted that Stellingwerf's policy, like the policy at issue in Hall, required disclosure of all resident operators and further required Stellingwerf to notify Allstate when an operator became a resident of the household and thus came within the provisions of the policy. It concluded that Allstate "should not be held to be insuring an unlicensed driver of whom it had no notice."
Etchison first argues that Hall is distinguishable because Hall involved underinsured coverage, not the mandatory liability coverage at issue here. Secondly, he contends that Stellingwerf's failure to identify Watson when she applied for the policy, or to otherwise notify Allstate about Watson prior to the accident, should not bar coverage because the policy did not require disclosure of Watson. Although he acknowledges that disclosure of Watson as a resident operator was a condition precedent to adding Watson to Stellingwerf's policy, he argues that Watson did not need to be added, because Watson was a resident when the policy was originally issued by virtue of the dissolution decree. He also notes that the term "resident operator" cannot be interpreted to include Watson, because an operator needs a driver's license, which Watson did not have. For these reasons, Etchison contends that Stellingwerf had no duty to notify Allstate about Watson under the policy and, therefo
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|