Dooley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
892 F. Supp. 2d 762
W.D. Va.2012Background
- Dooley sues Hartford in federal court diversity for declaratory judgment that his Hartford policy provides $200,000 of underinsured motorist coverage for a 2009 accident.
- Hartford counters with a declaratory judgment that UIM limits are $100,000 per person, and there is no UIM coverage for the accident.
- Policy issued in 2003 with $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident limits; 2008-2009 renewal omitted UM/UIM limits due to a computer error.
- Accident on February 25, 2009 involved a driver with $100,000 liability; Dooley incurred over $100,000 in medical expenses; Nationwide offered $100,000.
- Dooley relies on Williams to argue the omission creates ambiguity permitting stacking of UIM for three vehicles; Hartford argues the anti-stacking clause and Virginia-law default apply.
- Court concludes Virginia Code § 38.2-2206(A) supplies missing UIM limits to equal the liability limits, rendering stacking impermissible under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does omission of UIM limits create ambiguity for stacking? | Dooley alleges ambiguity triggers Williams stacking. | Hartford contends no ambiguity; anti-stacking clause applies. | No ambiguity; stacking not permitted. |
| Is Williams controlling? | Williams supports stacking when declarations are inconsistent. | Williams is inapplicable here due to no internal inconsistency. | Williams inapposite; case distinguished. |
| Does Va. Code § 38.2-2206(A) supply missing UIM limits? | Defaults would still permit stacking to higher limits. | Statute supplies UIM limits equal to liability limits when not listed. | Yes; statute supplies $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident. |
| Is the anti-stacking provision clear and unambiguous? | Ambiguity arises from omitted limits and reference to declarations. | Language is clear and unambiguous; stacking barred. | Anti-stacking language unambiguous; stacking barred. |
| Should the court reform the contract? | Reformation could fix the omission to allow coverage. | Reformation not necessary since stacking is barred. | Not reached; court does not reach reformation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bray v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 917 F.2d 130 (4th Cir. 1990) (statutory UIM limits default to liability limits when omitted)
- Virginia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 278 Va. 75, 677 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2009) (declarations page internal inconsistency can allow stacking)
- Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Borror, 221 Va. 967, 275 S.E.2d 625 (Va. 1981) (anti-stacking language clear and unambiguous)
- Duncan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 203 Va. 440, 125 S.E.2d 154 (Va. 1962) (statutory incorporation of uninsured/underinsured limits)