*1 270 A .2d 919. y Compan Fagnant Ernest Pacific Insurance York. of New Roberts, C. J. In this civil action the is seek- ing to recover from defendant for damages insurer sustained a vehicle motor collision under motorist clause of The policy of insurance. case was certified by to this court on agreed an statement of pursuant facts provisions G. L. prime issue §9-24-25. raised for our consideration is whether an insured has under an uninsured motor- ist clause in a policy, the tort-feasor at the time of the accident by liability was covered a to him which, issued an insurer by subsequent the occur- rence of the became accident, insolvent.

It is agreed by 12, 1963, that on a parties July motor operated by plaintiff vehicle being was struck the rear operated one is further by a Robert E. Shane. It agreed had a Shane which had been to him issued insurer subse- quently, 30, 1967, March became insolvent. The effect person was that 1967 became without Shane *2 plaintiff the instant Thereupon brought coverage. the uninsured motorist clause to recover under suit, seeking defendant. of issued to him this court in In the rule stated opinion, our Aldcroft York, New R. I. 311, v. Co. 106 Fidelity Casualty and In that case we dispositive of this issue. 259 A.2d is motorist clause in a considered the effect of an uninsured in terms with that contained policy that is identical In the clause defined an policy. instant that case where no bond was uninsured motor vehicle as one “ ” the ‘applicable language at the time of accident.’ in uninsured automobile is policy defining the instant Aldcrojt. the in precisely same as that n Aldcrojt, Nagy relying In Lumbermens held that Casualty we R. I. given in of insurance are to be used a contract the words ordinary, meaning seeking their and usual to deter plain, test the parties. Applying mine the intent of the “* Aldcrojt, policy terms set out in we concluded contemplated the contract that a vehicle would be an un when no liability vehicle within its terms was effect at the time the accident occurred.” We con parties contemplated clude in the instant case that the coverage under the uninsured motorist clause would be only liability policy effective no was effect at of the accident. In the case such a policy instant in effect, was and it is our conclusion that the was not and is not now within policy.

motorist clause of his papers hereby The record in this case are and sent with our decision endorsed back there- entry judgment thereon for of a final accordance with. Aldcrojt I did

Joslin, participate not v. York, and Co. New 106 R. I. therefore, read it from the vantage hindsight. I would restrict it to its facts.

In my judgment a tort-feasor whose insurance carrier becomes insolvent injured moments after he has a third person is no less an uninsured motorist than is a tort-feasor who at the moment when the accident occurred was with- any out liability insurance all. In either event the in- jured person protection is denied the which would have been if the tort-feasor at the time of the accident had *3 liability insurance which was “applicable,” is, as de- fined in Third New Dictionary, Webster’s International insurance “capable of being applied” satisfy to lawful claims. It was that kind of protection which was contem- plated by the parties. They were interested protecting, and being protected, against damages inflicted a finan- cially irresponsible party, and it was that kind of protection which the legislature when, had mind L. 1956, G. §27-7-2.1, subject it required, of the right reject coverage, all automobile insur- ance contracts issued in this state should contain an unin- sured motorist’s endorsement. divided,

While the authorities are I believe upon those I rely approach. which take a more realistic Whitney v. Co., American 767; 350 Mass. 215 N.E.2d Co., Hodges Canal (Miss.), Ins. 2d 630; So. Van guard Ins. Co. v. Polchlopek, 18 N.Y.2d 222 N.E.2d Co., 383; Pattani v. Ins. Keystone 426 Pa. Co.,

402; Tsapralis v. Public Employees Contra, 77 Wash.2d Apotas 464 P.2d 421. v. Allstate Co., Del., Ins. 923; Topolewski v. Detroit Auto Exch., mobile Inter-Ins. App. 286, 6 Mich. 148 N.W.2d 906; Swaringin v. Allstate Ins. (Mo.), 399 S.W.2d 131. specific issue before us Paolino, here I Therefore, partid- was not raised although Aldcroft. pated case, the latter I also it should be believe join confined to its own For reason I facts. dis- my sent of Brother Joslin. Palombo, Jr.,

Peter plaintiff. for LaFazia, Gunning Selya, Bruce M. John F. Mc- & Donough, for defendant.

271 A.2d 306. Raposa. Ronald State