*1 P.2d William HANSEN Lenora Otis
Hansen, wife, husband and
Plaintiffs-respondents,
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY,
INSURANCE
Defendant-appellant, Rodriguez
Daniel Does I John V,
through Defendants.
No. 16032.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
March 1987.
Rehearing April Denied 1987. *2 Farm,
MGB insured with State
was struck
by an
uninsured vehicle driven
Daniel
Rodriguez, who was drunk. The Hansens
carrier,
notified their
State
Farm,
day following
the accident. A
adjuster
State Farm claims
met with the
days following
Hansens within a few
arrangements
accident and made
pay-
for
damages
ment of
to their car as well as for
expenses
medical
incurred for their
injuries.
payments
These
were made un-
der
payment
the collision and medical
cov-
erages, and not under the uninsured motor-
policy covering
ist
the 1972
poli-
MGB. Hansens also held two other
Farm,
cies
covering
with State
two other
they
vehicles which
owned. Each of these
additional
also contained uninsured
Dominick,
Elam,
Bobbi K.
Burke &
Boise,
Boyd,
defendant-appellant.
for
28, 1983,
adjuster
On June
the claims
Whitney
Rainey,
David L.
and Ronald P.
respondents’ attorney
met with
on an un-
Alexanderson, Davis,
Rainey, Whitney &
matter,
related
the “Ames” file. At the
Kerrick, Caldwell,
plaintiffs-respon-
meeting,
conclusion of
attorney
that
dents.
agent
informed State Farm’s
that he was
representing
also
the Hansens on their
BAKES, Justice.
resulting
uninsured motorist claim
from
Appellant State Farm Mutual Automo-
Rodriguez
accident. He asserted that
(State Farm)
Company
ap-
bile Insurance
job
Mr. Hansen had lost his
as a result of
peals
jury
from a
verdict
favor of re-
injuries
suffered in
accident. The
that
spondents William and Lenora Hansen in a
record indicates that this was the first time
brought by
against
civil action
the Hansens
a claim under the uninsured motorist cover-
seeking
Farm
State
to recover under the
earnings
and a claim for lost
was as-
uninsured motorist
of certain
serted
the Hansens
State Farm.1
policies.
State Farm insurance
State Farm
agent requested
attorney
State Farm’s
appeals
also
the district court’s order
provide
reports
him with the medical
and
awarding attorney fees to the Hansens in
employer reports
support or
which would
appeal,
the action below. On
State Farm
(1) verify
earnings.
claim of lost
contends that the district court erred in
Mr. Hansen’s
permitting Hansens to “stack” their unin-
adjuster
The claims
further testified that
under their three
attorney agreed
supply
such infor-
(2)
policies;
holding
State
the arbitra-
testimony
mation. This
is uncontroverted
provi-
tion clause
the uninsured motorist
reports
These
were never
the record.
void;
(3)
sion unenforceable and
attempts by
provided despite numerous
awarding attorney
pursuant
fees
to I.C.
agent
attorney
for the
claims
contact
part,
41-1839.
reverse in
affirm
months,
next
Hansens. For the
few
part and remand.
paid,
under the medical
Farm received
16, 1983,
payment coverage, the medical bills sub-
April
On
William and Lenora
car,
for medical ex-
injured
Hansen were
when their
a 1972 mitted
the Hansens
meeting,
injuries.
adjuster
Hansens also indi-
1. When the State Farm claims
first met
At
following
days
the driver of the vehicle which struck
with Hansens a few
dent,
their acci-
cated that
carry
both William
Lenora
them had been cited for failure to
insur-
asserted
investigating
injuries
getting
police
were
better and that nei-
ance
officer
the acci-
ther had lost
time from work due to their
dent.
penses
injuries
Following discovery,
particularly
incurred as a result of their
reports from the medical examinations
from
accident.
Hansen,
Mr.
entered
settle-
State Farm
into
9, 1983,
making
On December
without
negotiations
*3
the Hansens. State
ment
demand,
any previous
the
filed
Hansens
$13,-
the
Farm offered to settle
matter for
unin-
suit
State Farm under the
Respondents rejected
of
500 in June
1984.
coverage.
sured motorist
August,
rejection
this offer in
1984. Their
apparently was based on their
that
belief
the
During
discovery,
course of
Mr. Han-
injuries
Mr. Hansen’s
were more serious
examined,
request,
sen was
at State Farm’s
they
than earlier believed and also that
by two doctors. As
of
a result
those exam-
insurance
would
entitled to
be
“stack”
inations, State Farm
first
learned for the
coverage under
State
the three different
pre-existing
time
Mr.
had
that
Hansen
a
the
three
policies
Farm
held
Hansens on
hip
ag-
arthritic
condition which had been
different vehicles. Hansens counterof-
gravated
April 16,
as a result
$30,000,
limits of
avail-
fered
accident. State Farm received the results
able if
three
were “stacked.”
nearly year
of these examinations
a
follow-
point
negotiations
At this
broke
settlement
ing the accident.2 The record also indicates
off,
litigation proceeded.
and
subsequent
that
to commencement of liti-
September 4,
On
counsel for Han-
gation
reports
Farm
State
obtained
from
seeking
complaint
sens filed an amended
Mr.
employer.
only
Hansen’s
The
informa-
stack
for the first time to
the uninsured
appeal regarding
tion in
record on
coverages
policies,
motorist
three
as
reports
these
found
a letter from
punitive damages
well as
for State Farm’s
appellant’s counsel to
for
counsel
Hansens.
alleged
refusing
bad faith in
to settle Han-
letter,
appellant’s
that
counsel asserts
5,1984,
sens’
On
claims.
October
Hansens
that he
Mr.
em-
was informed
Hansen’s
summary judgment
moved for
on the stack-
ployer that the
for
reason
Mr. Hansen’s
9, 1984,
ing
On
issue.
October
ten months
disabling
was
any
dismissal
not because of
filed,
after the action
for
was
injury,
per-
was
poor
but
because
his
compel
the first time moved to
arbitration
both
clause
unin-
formance
and after his
under the arbitration
automo-
before
provision
policy
in the
cover-
bile accident. Counsel’s assertion
ing
MGB,
the 1972
the car involved in the
by any
letter is not controverted
other evi-
April,
accident.5
record,
apparent
dence in
nor is it
from
jury
verdict that
award
its
to Mr. Han-
court,
hearing
The
after a
and brief-
trial
sen
for
earnings.3
ing
matter,
was
lost future
on the
denied State Farm’s
provision.
pertinent
language
2.
Mr.
When
Hansen was contacted
adjuster approximately
days
claims
four
after
from the
is as follows:
accident,
he did not indicate
had
that he
“Deciding Fault and Amount
any injury
hip.
suffered
to his
He also stated
questions
by agreement
decided
"Two
must be
any
that he had not lost
time from work as a
us:
between
insured and
result of the accident.
legally
Is the
entitled
collect
1.
insured
damages from the owner or driver of the
Court,
argument
3. At oral
before this
counsel
vehicle;
motor
respondents
jury
uninsured
for
indicated that the
award
so,
represented an award
cover
fu-
the costs of
2.
If
in what amount?
surgery
hip.
on Mr.
agreement,
ture
Hansen's
At no time
questions
"If there is no
these
respondents’
argument
has
counsel asserted that
upon
shall
decided
arbitration
written
presented
jury upon
and evidence were
request
party
or us.
shall
the insured
Each
damages
could
lost
which it
award
based on
competent
impartial
a
select
arbitrator.
earnings.
future
a
These two shall select
third one.
If unable
agree
days
on the third one within 30
either
$10,000
per-
per
4.
Each
contained
may
party
request
judge
or a court of record
son/$20,000 per
liability
accident limit of
under
county
pend-
in which
arbitration is
the uninsured motorist
ing
select a third one. The written
decision
MGB,
policy covering
5. The
binding
two arbitrators shall be
on
policies,
the other
con-
well as
two insurance
party.”
original.)
(Emphasis in
each
tained an arbitration clause in the uninsured
grounds
motion to arbitrate on
bodily injury
“2. For
to an insured:
was unenforceable
occupying,
a. while
or
due to
lack mutual assent. Hansens’
through being
b.
struck
summary judgment
motion for
by you,
a motor vehicle
your
owned
abeyance,
issue was held in
spouse
if
in-
relative
it is not
proceeded
jury
the case
trial on Febru-
pol-
sured for this
under this
ary
litigated
1985. The
issue
added.)
icy.” (Emphasis
damages.6
$69,000
jury
returned a
The trial court found that such anti-stack
verdict, $64,000 William,
$5,000
for
ing provisions
against public
were void as
Lenora. The verdict for William was re-
*4
policy. The trial court based its decision in
$30,000judgment
duced to a
against State
large part
Appeals
Court
deci
by
Farm
the trial court on State Farm’s
sions in Hammon v. Farmers Insurance
judgment
motion to conform the
with the
770,
(Ct.
Group, 107 Idaho
I
specifically requires an insurance carrier
coverage
an
occupy-
to extend
insured
stacking
We first address the
issue. The
ing
is not
permitted
an owned vehicle which
insured
stacking
trial court
of the unin-
by
under a motor vehicle
the carrier
lia-
coverage
poli-
in the three
policy.
public policy
find no
bility
cies held
Hansens with State Farm.
implicit
statutory
scheme of auto-
our
policies
Each of the three
contains an ex-
require
should
mobile insurance which
press, unambiguous provision
pro-
which
coverage and thus invalidate the
poli-
hibits
under the
exclusionary clause
the instant case.”
alleged
cies where the
loss
suffered
Id.,
“There is no plies only to vehicles insured under that
particular policy.
policies
expressly
damage
prior
prejudice
faith/punitive
6. Hansens dismissed with
their bad
claim
to trial.
charged by
legislature
regulating
exclude
vehicle not in-
our
with
Thus,
policy.”
gen-
industry
sured “under this
in this
state.
Among
charge
the duties entrusted to his
any ambiguity
eral rule that
in an adhesion
reviewing
approving
are those of
insur-
is to be construed
legislature
ance
del-
forms.
has
inapplicable
drafter of the contract is
in the
egated
responsibility
to the Director the
ambiguity
case. There is no
in the
assuring that insurance contracts utilized
“anti-stacking” clause of the uninsured mo-
comport
public policy.
in this state
coverage in
torist
each
The lan-
41-113,
legislature
specifical-
I.C.
has
guage
used
is clear and
ly stated that
business of insurance
“[t]he
concise. There is no need to construe
interest,
public
is one affected
re-
ambiguity.7
recently
As we
stated in
quiring
persons
that all
be actuated
Co.,
AID
Kromrei v.
Ins.
110 Idaho
good faith,
deception,
abstain from
(1986),
“Where the
practice honesty
equity
in all insurance
language
unambiguous,
is clear and
there
matters____” Thus,
legislature
has
construction,
is no occasion for
and cover-
concomitantly provided the Director
according
must be determined
Department
authority
of Insurance with
*5
plain meaning of the
employed.”
words
Id.
disapprove any
policy
insurance
form
551,
at
approved by the Director are pre- provisions, thus ist we also conclude that there sumed to harmony public public be in is no violated an including In the absence proof that a arbitration clause in an policy con- uninsured motorist Indeed, perceive we express express tains which conflict with an legislative legislative directives, policy in favor of such clauses. approv- Director’s legislature adopted the Idaho al of an form is an admin- Uniform Arbitration Act. 1975 Idaho Sess. istrative determination that the policy form Laws, 117, 2, p. 240; ch. I.C. 7-901 et “public is in the §§ interest.” I.C. 41-113. seq. Loomis, As we held in Inc. v. Cu- It is asserted case is dahy, (1982), P.2d 1359 partially distinguishable from the situation the legislature’s in adopting action the act in Dullenty, here all policies because three encourage evinces an intent to arbitration sought which are stacked were issued agreements “as effective means to re- [an] carrier, the same insurance whereas in disputed solve issues.” Id. at 656 P.2d Dullenty they by separate issued were act, Idaho, at adopted 1361. The carriers. insignifi- We find the distinction specifically provides that written “[a] premium cant. separate charged agreement any existing to submit contro- each policies of the three for uninsured versy to or arbitration in a has, basis, as its cover- written to submit to particular for designated vehicle any controversy arising thereafter between separate policies. each of the Nothing in parties valid, enforceable and irrev- suggests the record separate that the pre- ocable, grounds upon save as exist at mium charged each has as equity law in for revocation of its basis coverage other vehicle *6 contract.” I.C. 7-901. owned the insured and insured under question present There is no in the case short, one of the policies. other In there is that a written contract exists which con- no evidence in appeal the record on that provision. tains an arbitration The unin- any windfall would to accrue State Farm if coverage of the insurance anti-stacking the provision of the uninsured expressly provides, unambiguous motorist were enforced language, par- for between the arbitration the Hansens. they agree ties in the event cannot as to Thus, hold, we as we did in Dullen legal right either the insured’s to collect ty, anti-stacking that provisions the in the damages owner or from the driver of the question in the case are uninsured motor or the vehicle amount of contrary public policy not to and are there damages. provides, As I.C. 7-901 court, fore enforceable. The district which provision the must arbitration be enforced ruled without of the benefit our decision grounds “such unless there exist as exist holding Dullenty, erred in to contrary. the for equity at law or in the revocation of We therefore the Loomis, reverse district court’s Cudahy, contract.” In Inc. v. decision regarding anti-stacking the issue. supra, interpreted this “revocation” we ex- “only
ception applying as to cases in which step in the courts will and rescind the II agreement fraud, such as reasons du- State Farm that it asserts was error for ress, Loomis, or undue influence.” v. Inc. the deny district court to Farm’s mo- at 656 Cudahy, Idaho P.2d at tion compel to arbitration under the arbi- argued appeal, 1362. Hansens not on have provision tration of the uninsured motorist below, they nor did the at trial existence of coverage of policy. disagree We and fraud, or undue duress influence on court, affirm district albeit on different part procuring Farm in of State grounds. Morrow, Andre provision arbitration insurance con- (1984). Rather, tract. Hansens frame the is- they As regard voluntarily we held above with sue as whether entered agreement. “anti-stacking” in uninsured into the clauses motor- arbitration The dis- premiums of the Restatement accepted framing trict court this of (Second) favor of Contracts 19. issue decided in the Hansens. Hansens, subsequent- hold that the
We they argue may that have Hansens while court, misapprehended ly district insurance, they to a contract for assented their at hand and therefore erred in issue relinquishment of did not assent to a analysis. right litigate disputed issues under that They argue in a of law. contract court court held that district agents State Farm or its failed to that since mutuality agreement lacked the existence of the arbitration disclose was unenforceable. assent therefore provision in the uninsured motorist cover- application find that the district court’s its they were unaware of existence “mutuality of assent” doctrine cannot be the same. therefore bound one of of the numerous However, above, as we have stated insurance contract State Farm and between goes question assent to the heart of the a misapplication of the Hansens be of the a bargain contract as whole and not Mutuality doctrine. assent refers separate to each that contract is, bargain. That question heart goes unless such term to the heart of the goes mutuality of assent to the forma Furthermore, bargain. accept were we to of a a not tion contract as whole. It does reasoning, necessity Hansens’ we would of single to a of a unless refer term compelled conclude no uninsured goes bargain term to the heart of the was available at all to represented by the whole. contract as a the Hansens. sworn statements to the (Second) Contracts, Restatement its court, trial Mrs. Hansen indicated that at dealing section with the formation no time uninsured motorist contract, recognizes expressly this distinc agent discussed State Farm’s at the “Thus, tion. an offer where is contained applied time that she for automobile insur- writing either the offeror or the offeree anyone “Neither Mr. nor ance. Baker else may, reading without mani writing, ... associated with State Mutual In- fest assent to it and bind without *7 Company himself ever surance discussed uninsured (Sec knowing its terms.” Restatement affiant____ motorist with There ond) (em (1981) Contracts comment b simply was never discussion or men- added). phasis really did not tion of the matter and affiant what motorist cover- understand uninsured dealing If we were with a contract which Thus, until this lawsuit.” the was primary purpose had as its the arbitration reasoning, mutuality own of as- Hansens’ disputed issue, aof the nonex- existence or lacking be to the entire unin- sent would might perti- istence of mutual assent be a coverage, just not the arbi- point inquiry. However, nent of arewe of provision tration that dealing awith contract which as its has primary purpose acquisition the of automo- argue the also that arbitration Hansens is bile insurance. It not the asserted provision should be found unenforceable Hansens that the insurance as a contract question the contract in is an adhe- because mutuality whole lacks of is cer- assent. It and therefore there is no sion contract bar- tainly in not the interests of the to Hansens companies gaining with insurance over the mutuality assent, lack assert because argument find to be terms. We this with- would unen- that render the entire contract nothing out It more appears merit. forceable. It is clear that argument the Hansens that arbitration clauses than an manifested their assent to the contract in contracts should be held void as such filling However, when application against public policy. legis- insurance out the the signing expressly public form for the insurance and it. that lature has declared assent after in policy provisions Their was further manifested favors arbitration writ- 7-901; Loomis, receiving by payment the mail ten contracts. I.C. Inc. 670 Cudahy, supra.8 legislature
v. If the had submitting jurisdic- filed and that exempt types intended to certain of con proceeding tion of the district court and from the court, tracts of the Uniform litigation with that Farm State Act, Arbitration it could done so. In right have compel waived its As arbitration. fact, specific I.C. 7-901 ex Loomis, contains a we 104 Cudahy, stated Inc. v. agreements emption regarding arbitration Idaho at P.2d at “Arbitration employers i.e., employees, between inexpensive rapid an generally offers bargaining process. collective This Court prolonged litigation. also alternative It ambigu has held: “Where statutes not are serves to alleviate crowded court dockets.” ous, duty it is the of the court to follow the (Footnote omitted). underlying The policy written, socially and if or law as it is other agreements the enforcement of arbitration unsound, power legis wise is to correct provisions in a written contract ren- is lative, Hawkins, judicial.” not Anstine v. meaningless dered parties when the 561, 563, (1968). 447 P.2d agreements proceed litigation pro- with the Additionally, the arbitration clause has precisely cess. happened That what has again presumably approved by been case. Insurance, Department Director of the When suit was commenced Han- legislature delegated whom has 9, 1983, filing sens on December with the authority approving and responsibility for complaint of their in district ser- court and terms. Farm, complaint upon vice of that State Co., supra.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. point State at that dis- Farm knew that a regarding We hold that the district court erred pute existed under ruling provision provision arbitration uninsured motorist of their insur- uninsured motorist unenforcea ance State Farm. There no with showing by There ble. has been no proceed reason for Farm to State litigation i.e., Hansens based on the evidence com- process, answering the record, find, nor did the district court that plaint, engaging discovery, taking the depositions the inclusion of the requiring Mr. Hansens’ fraud, was the result of or undue duress Hansen to medical to submit examination. part influence on the Farm. compel of State did not move to arbitra- Loomis, Cudahy, supra. nearly following Inc. v. Accord tion until eleven months ingly, holding the trial court erred in commencement action Hansens. against public such clauses were void as did until State Farm not seek arbitration negotiations it broke off and settlement seek apparent became Hansens would Although concluding that arbitra the uninsured cover- *8 enforceable, provisions tion are valid and short, policies. age of their State Farm court’s we nonetheless affirm the district things go- appeared when it were not compel of to denial State Farm’s motion ing way, its State Farm wanted out of Morrow, 106 arbitration. Andre v. litigation process. 459, (1984) 680 P.2d hold, case, (“Where as an order of a is cor the facts of this we lower court Under law, rect, its upon theory, based an erroneous a matter of that State Farm waived but upon right will be affirmed the correct to enforce order in- in theory.”). We hold that Farm’s mo the uninsured State Therefore, compel untimely we affirm tion to arbitration was surance contract. (Bistline, J., Loomis, (1982) holding dissenting). given The 8. The facts of that 1370-71 case, presented directly contrary in Loomis Mrs. to assertion form contract was to Hansens’ very day exempted Cudahy first time adhesion for the when contracts should be alleg- agreement. signed Arbitration she Its contents from of the Uniform edly Mrs. The never discussed or disclosed to Act. contract under consideration were also, Nevertheless, Cudahy. case, under the of that Loomis was an adhesion a stan facts Loomis, the arbitration clause AIA form Inc. v. we held found in dardized contract. 106, 117-118, Cudahy, to be enforceable. 104 Idaho P.2d form contract denying loss; (3) the district court’s order State the insured “thereafter” is compel Farm’s motion to compelled arbitration. bring to suit to for his recover loss. Ill The evidence the record in the The district court found that the case indicates that the Hansens failed to Hansens were entitled to recover reason requirements, they meet these because attorney able fees under I.C. 41-1839. § provide proof prior failed to of loss any State Farm contends that award of bringing against suit State Farm. The dis- fees under justified I.C. 41-1839 is not § trict court found that State Farm not was due to Hansens’ provide proof failure to proof May, furnished of loss until prior against loss to the action State Farm. following filing over five months of the agree and reverse the award of attor complaint by Hansens. The district court ney fees. also found it only that was then that State portion The relevant of I.C. 41- § Farm became aware of Mr. Hansen’s dis- 1839 reads as follows: abling hip injury. State Farm then offered attorney “41-1839. Allowance of fees $13,500 court, to the Hansens. The district against (1) Any suits insur- having erroneously concluded that insurers. — issuing any er policy, certificate or con- permitted $30,000 and that there was insurance, surety, guaranty tract of or coverage, insurance construed the indemnity any kind or nature whatso- brought” language “thereafter in I.C. ever, which period shall 41-1839(1) meaning any as fail for time after (SO) thirty days proof loss has suit, bringing up after even to the actual trial. provided poli- been in such furnished The district construing court erred in so cy, contract, certificate pay or 41-1839(1). proof of loss under the person entitled thereto the justly amount thirty days prior statute must be furnished policy, due under such certificate or con- bringing the action. tract, any shall action thereafter provided information to State brought against the insurer in court Farm by prior initiating the Hansens in this state recovery under the terms lawsuit were routine doctor bills contract, of. policy, certificate or pay paid by which were State Farm under the such further amount as the court shall coverage provisions policy.9 medical adjudge attorney’s reasonable as fees in The record contains no evidence that Han- added.) such action.” (Emphasis provided any reports physicians sens from provides I.C. 41-1839 an incentive to an or Mr. employer regarding Hansen’s his just insurer to settle claims made under a employment regarding loss of any loss insured; held its aim is to apart suffered Mrs. Hansen from the prevent litigation high and the costs associ- paid by medical bills submitted to and ated with it. Once an present- insured has Farm, nor was written demand made ed a claim provided the insurer and upon State Farm under the uninsured mo- proof loss, of his insured he should not coverage prior filing torist suit. We litigation have to resort to to collect on his therefore reverse decision of the dis- so, If ishe forced to do *9 awarding trict attorney court fees to the litigation the economic risk of process Hansens. insurer, is that of the not the insured. The The language regard- decision of the district court of this is section clear and unam- ing stacking biguous. coverage An under the insured is entitled to an policies attorney only (1) award of if Hansens’ three fees he has uninsured mo- provided proof required coverage torist is by loss as reversed and remanded (2) policy; compa- entry the insurance to the district court for of an amend- ny pay fails to justly judgment reflecting liability an amount due under ed under the thirty days proof single within coverage of such uninsured provi- motorist paid brought. 9. The record indicates that some medical bills were even after the lawsuit was sion of policy covering sum, the insurance In we find nothing in our statu- 1972 MGB. The decision of the tory district scheme of automobile insurance denying court motion Farm’s to com- which specifically requires an insurance pel on arbitration is affirmed different carrier to coverage extend to an insured grounds. The decision of the district court occupying an owned vehicle which is not awarding attorney fees is reversed. insured by the carrier under a motor vehicle liability policy. We find pub- no affirming part Since we are and re- policy implicit lic statutory our scheme versing part, we award no costs or attor- of automobile insurance which should re- ney appeal. fees on quire such and thus invalidate exclusionary clause the instant DONALDSON, J., McFADDEN, case. speak specifical- We do not to and tern., pro J. concur. ly question reserve the in a circumstance SHEPARD, Justice, dissenting. Chief presented as is where Hammon an insured under two or more motor vehicle with, disagree I and therefore dissent liability policies, each by issued the same from, majority opinion Part I of the which Carrier, and each which insures a “stacking” addresses the issue. vehicle, separate and in each which majority points correctly out that at policies by issued the same carrier the time of the trial court decision in the paid pre- insured has elected to and a case, instant our decision in Dullenty v. mium uninsured coverage. motorist Co., Rocky Mountain Fire & Cos. case, course, Such a would then in- (1986), had not been stacking coverages volve the issue of states, majority issued. The here “The ra policies by under each of the issued in Dullenty equal tionale of our decision is same carrier. today Since we have held ly applicable case.” I dis exclusionary in- clause agree. stant eliminates while Dullenty materially The facts of differ occupying the insured is another owned from the facts of the instant case. Dullen- vehicle, carrier, by uninsured the same vehicles, ty owned three motor one of exclusionary and have held that such by which was insured Rocky Mountain. against public is not poli- clause void as The other two vehicles were insured a cy, stacking we need not address the carrier, different Dullenty but nevertheless (Emphasis issue in the instant case. add- asserted that he was covered under the ed.) Rocky policy against Mountain uninsured Hence, in my Dullenty view the Court in provisions, although operating address, specifically declined to re- vehicle not insured Rocky Mountain. time, served for a future issue Rocky policy specifically Mountain ex- multiple when vehicles are owned but all cluded operating while a ve- single carrier, pattern insured the fact by Dullenty hicle owned but not insured of the instant case. Since that issue was Rocky Mountain. Dullenty, not addressed in it must ad- contrast, the facts of the instant case today. dressed indicate that the Hansens owned three ve- noted, opinion majority As above as- hicles, all of which by policies were covered Dullenty serts that the “rationale” of premiums issued State Farm for which applicable here. The ultimate “rationale” paid, were and each of which con- was that an insurance carrier tained uninsured motorist adequately must be able to assess the risks although In Dullenty, the Court was insures, charge premi- it which *10 urged stacking to address the issue compensate carrier for the risks ums beyond facts particular abstract and it assumes. so, Dullenty, Court declined to do stat- ing: Court stated:
We view the business of insurance as relatively simple concept complex Idaho, but Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE of purchases in its detail. One insurance as hedge against a Thereby risk. that risk OLIN, Danny Defendant-Appellant. Lee partly is transferred to an in- wholly No. 16709. An surance carrier. insurance carrier will remain in business if it is able Supreme Court of Idaho. adequately reality assess the and the March 1987. risk, magnitude through underwriting process charge premiums adequately compensate
which will
carrier for the risks assumed. If a carri-
er adequately charge fails to assess or assumed, long
for the risks it will not be business____
If required against to insure [a carrier]
a risk undesignated of an but owned
vehicle, or a danger- different and more type
ous of vehicle of which it has no
knowledge, thereby required it is to in- against unaware,
sure risks of which it is underwrite,
unable to and unable to
charge premium a therefor.
In the instant case State Farm insured
all three vehicles owned the Hansens charged accepted premium
its on all three vehicles. It can-
not be said that State thereby Farm was
required to insure risks of which it unaware, underwrite, unable to charge
unable to premium therefor. respects
those gov- instant case is not
erned either the facts nor the rationale
of Dullenty.
I would therefore affirm the district
court issue.
HUNTLEY, J., concurs.