 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.3/3/2005
hit-and-run" vehicle and, consequently, would conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling to the contrary. Cf. Lhotka v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 572 N.W.2d 772, 774-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (accident not "hit-and-run" where driver stopped after accident, inquired about injury to insured, made no attempt to conceal identity and left only after insured asserted she was not injured); Muller v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 682 N.E.2d 331, 335-36 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (insured entitled to coverage under "hit-and-run" provision because, among other things, she was rendered unconscious by accident and was therefore not able to obtain identifying information from other driver). But see Commerce Ins. Co. v. Mendonca, 784 N.E.2d 43, 45-47 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (vehicle "hit-and-run" under uninsured motorist provision in passenger's policy where driver stopped and spoke with driver of vehicle in which passenger was riding but left without first providing identifying information, and passenger not aware she was injured). The majority's conclusion is, on the facts of this case, contrary to the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase "hit-and-run" that we previously articulated in Soule.
Because I would hold that the taxicab in this case was not a "hit-and-run" vehicle, I would, on that basis, conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled to UM coverage. However, although the trial court erred in ruling that the taxicab was a "hit-and-run" vehicle, I would not reverse because the trial court, albeit for the wrong reason, also concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to UM coverage. See In re Estate of Laura, 141 N.H. 628, 633 (1997) (when trial court reaches correct result, but on mistaken grounds, this court will sustain decision if valid alternative grounds support it). Thus, I would affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Progressive and denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I dissent.
DALIANIS, J., joins in the dissent.
|