McGoff v. Acadia Insurance, 30 A.3d 680

Thomas McGoff was injured in a Vermont car accident while driving a Sandri-provided company car insured by Acadia; Sandri owned the Plymouth, registered in Massachusetts, and garaged in Massachusetts per policy form.
Acadia issued a Massachusetts fleet policy covering Sandri vehicles, including the Plymouth, with garaging listed as Massachusetts and with elective UIM of $20,000 per person and liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Plaintiffs sought underinsured motorist coverage under Vermont law after the at-fault driver had $100,000 liability; Acadia denied UIM on the basis that the Vermont UM/UIM requirements do not apply to the fleet policy because it was not delivered or issued for delivery in Vermont.
Superior Court denied Acadia’s initial summary-judgment motion in 2007, then granted later motions concluding § 941(a) does not apply to the Acadia fleet policy.
The court’s decision turned on whether Vermont’s UM/UIM requirements apply to a Massachusetts fleet policy for a vehicle (Plymouth) garaged in Vermont, and whether § 941(c) could mandate higher UIM limits.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding that § 941(a) applies only to policies delivered or issued for delivery in Vermont, and the Acadia policy was delivered in Massachusetts, so Vermont UIM requirements do not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 941(a) apply to Acadia fleet policy not delivered in Vermont?	McGoff argues VT UM/UIM applies up to $1,000,000 because vehicle is garaged in VT.	Policy not delivered or issued for delivery in VT; VT UM/UIM not applicable.	No; § 941(a) does not apply.
Does garaging location alter § 941(a) applicability when the policy was delivered in another state?	Plymouth garaged in VT makes VT UIM applicable despite policy delivery in MA.	Delivery/issuance controls; garaging alone does not trigger § 941(a).	Delivery requirements control; VT UIM not triggered.
Can § 941(c) compel UIM up to the policy’s liability limits where the policy’s UIM election was $20,000?	Sandri should be entitled to UIM up to $1,000,000 under § 941(c).	Massachusetts law did not require notice or election to $1,000,000; § 941(c) not triggered here.	§ 941(c) not applicable; UIM limited to the elected $20,000.
Should VT UIM law be applied because it would protect the public despite language of statute?	Public policy supports applying VT UIM to protect insureds.	Court must follow the Legislature’s intent and plain statute; not absurd results.	Not applied; statute applies as written.

Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Estate of Lawton, 2003 VT 7 (2003 VT 7) (UIM coverage depends on tortfeasor’s limits relative to insured’s UIM)
Monteith v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 159 Vt. 378, 618 A.2d 488 (1992) (UIM fills gap between tortfeasor’s limits and insured’s UIM)
Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 2005 VT 1 (2005 VT 1) (statutory interpretation regarding UIM and delivery/issuance)
Henderson v. Lincoln National Specialty Insurance Co., 68 Ohio St.3d 303, 626 N.E.2d 657 (Ohio 1994) (alternative view on applying similar statute)
Central Transport, Inc. v. Blake, 985 S.W.2d 805 ( Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (statutory interpretation of similar UM/UIM provisions)