Authored by: Joseph Ciollo
Superior Court – Underinsured Motorist Benefits – Unlisted Vehicle
In Kruzel v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., the plaintiff was injured as a result of motor vehicle accident and filed a claim against the tortfeasor. The insurer for the tortfeasor resolved the claim and exhausted the full limit of liability coverage. The plaintiff then filed suit against Progressive and claimed entitlement to Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) coverage. Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that no UIM coverage was owed because the plaintiff was operating his own vehicle, which was neither listed on the applicable policy nor insured under the policy, and his vehicle was insured under a separate policy with a different insurance carrier. The facts demonstrated that Progressive insured the plaintiff’s father under the applicable policy, the plaintiff was insured under the policy because he was a resident relative, but the policy did not list the plaintiff’s motorcycle as a covered auto on the declarations page. In addition, the motorcycle was insured under a separate policy issued by GEICO, which included UIM coverage. The Court noted that although the plaintiff was insured under the policy as a relative, the motorcycle he was riding when the alleged accident occurred was not and could not be a covered auto, and the motorcycle was owned and available for regular use by the plaintiff and insured under a different policy, which included UIM coverage. The plaintiff argued that the policy issued by Progressive should be considered for excess coverage, but provided no legal authority in support of this argument. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the policy language suggested that Progressive intended to omit motorcycles from the exclusions provision relied upon which it relied in this case or, at a minimum, that the policy language was ambiguous. The motion for summary judgment was granted.
Superior Court – Uninsured Motorist Benefits – Arbitration Clause
In Freeman v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., the plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident when her vehicle was truck by a hit-and-run motorist who was not identified. The plaintiff filed suit against Amica and sought Uninsured Motorist (“UM”) coverage. Amica filed a motion for stay of proceedings in court and to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause contained within the applicable insurance policy. Amica alleged that it made a demand for arbitration, but the plaintiff would not agree to arbitrate in New Jersey, as required by the policy. The Court noted that pursuant to the policy, either side may request an arbitration, and both sides do not need to agree to arbitrate. Further, it appeared that the defendant could demand arbitration and stay this litigation. The arbitration clause also included language providing that the arbitration decision would be binding as to the amount of damages if the amount did not exceed $25,000. If the amount exceeded that limit, either party may demand the right to a trial. At oral argument, both sides agreed that New Jersey law applied to the case because it involved a New Jersey insurance policy and the plaintiff resided in New Jersey. Accordingly, the Court undertook an analysis of New Jersey law to determine the enforceability of the arbitration clause. Pursuant to New Jersey law, because the plaintiff was not guaranteed the right to a trial and because the arbitration clause did not clearly alert the plaintiff that she was waiving her right to a trial in court, the arbitration clause was found to be unenforceable. The motion for stay of proceedings in court and to compel arbitration was denied.
Superior Court – Uninsured Motorist Benefits – Multiple Policies
In Byrd v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., the plaintiff was injured as a result of motor vehicle accident and filed a claim against the tortfeasor. The insurer for the tortfeasor resolved the claim and exhausted the full limit of liability coverage. The plaintiff then filed suit against Progressive and claimed entitlement to Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) coverage. The Progressive policy did not list the Mitsubishi Outlander (“Mitsubishi”) owned and operated by the plaintiff in the coverage schedule and did not list the plaintiff as a named insured. At the time the accident, the plaintiff’s Mitsubishi was insured by Stillwater Insurance. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the accident, a Chevrolet C5C (“Chevrolet”) listed in Progressive’s coverage schedule was out of service and consequently, she was utilizing the Mitsubishi as a temporary substitute vehicle under the Progressive policy. Progressive denied that the Mitsubishi qualified as a temporary substitute vehicle under its policy and filed a motion for summary judgment. Progressive argued that the plaintiff was an occupant of her own vehicle, the Mitsubishi, which was listed and insured under the Stillwater policy, and therefore under Connecticut law the plaintiff’s recovery was limited to the UIM benefits provided under the Stillwater policy. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that although the Mitsubishi was not listed under the Progressive policy, it was used as a temporary substitute vehicle for a listed vehicle, the Chevrolet, which was out of service. A key consideration for the Court was the absence of evidence that the plaintiff paid for two premiums, on two policies, to cover the same vehicle on both policies for UIM coverage. Based on the undisputed material facts, the Court found that the only policy that listed and insured the Mitsubishi was the Stillwater policy, and that the plaintiff’s claim for UIM benefits against Progressive was therefore barred as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment was granted.
