*1 probabilities against things all of these any given sprinkler system occurring in KAY, Respondent, Plaintiff and necessary sequence causal cause one; run thousands into Myrtle L. KAY and Farm it is obviously any much more so Defendants Appellant. any harmful person one or house- beyond question any- hold. It seems that No. 13103. likely by one is far more to be harmed oth- Supreme Court of Utah. er ordinary living hazards of than Sept. 6, 1973. danger the is designed rule concern here to eliminate. foregoing impresses us as
demonstrating persua soundness
siveness argument expense
extraordinary imposed trouble and beyond regulation is entirely reason extremely it is to the rare
possibility of harm intended to
guard against; so because
it would seem whatever minimal dan
ger may could greatly exist minimized
by simpler precautions less expensive
in the construction and operation of such
systems.
On the basis what been said here-
in, it is our conclusion validity rule in is vulnerable to the at-
tack upon made it: arbitrary that it is
unreasonable, and that it therefore should
not be enforced. No costs awarded.
CALLISTER, J.,C. and ELLETT and JJ., concur. J., does not participate
herein. the insurance
apply bodily injury any member of residing in the same household Upon appeal, as the insured. *2 held that under the facts of the case Kay exclusionary Richard within the was clause, policy.1 which did violate Thereupon, plaintiff his amended com plaint joined as an addi defendant, tional claiming that he enti was tled to recover under the uninsured motor L. L. Summerhays, of Strong Hanni, of his mother’s State Salt Lake City, for State Farm Mutual. summary Farm moved for judgment, L. Black Gary Atkin, E. John Salt was denied. The was tried before a action City, Lake for Kay. merits; a verdict was rendered Heber Ivins, Grant Fork, American W. in plaintiff; and judgment was Wilcox, Brent Salt City, Lake plaintiff against entered both jointly defendants and respondent. severally. Farm, alone, appeals. CALLISTER, Chief Justice: prevailed Plaintiff before the trial court Plaintiff initiated this his action theory that as to his mother injuries damages mother to for the recover motorist an operating uninsured riding sustained while her in a vehicle, uninsured since the liability in one-car accident. mother’s household exclusion absolved the clause surer, Mutual, a filed declara in par- insurer from tory judgment action both mother ticular successfully accident. Plaintiff and son to under the determine provision claimed that in policy a un- liability policy by Myrtle Kay, carried as der uninsured motorist owner and de the vehicle stated term “uninsured automo- schedule, policy scribed in the which was bile” shall not an automobile de- include Kay in involved was accident. fined in the as an “insured automo- household, resident mother’s in exclusion bile” was void and violation of the man- section of Peterson, 1. State Farm (1971), 26 Utah P.2d held that wherein join improper in- 2. State Farm elected to remain in the action party surer as a defendant with tort-feasor. ruling did invoke the. of Christensen 41-12-21.1, accident; U.C.A.19S3, date of Section such . . This . .” section amended 1967. further such a be effective under this section it must be provides:
Section 41-12-21.1 issued an insurance authorized Commencing 1, 1967, July no auto- to do state and business mobile . certain minimum limits monetary of cover- . . . delivered unless cov- age. erage or a such operator, owner had it, supplement bodily in limits for in- liability policy effect jury or death set forth in 41-12- section respect to the motor filed with and accident in which sustained his in- proved by the state insurance commis- juries. Plaintiff has not claimed that such persons protection sion for the comply statutory with the legally are thereunder who entitled requirements of Section 41-12-5. Since damages to recover from owners or defendant exempt from the sanc- erators of uninsured motor vehicles tions of by having in ef- bodily . because liability policy her on her motor vehi- *3 resulting therefrom . . . cle, her may vehicle not be deemed an “un- insured vehicle” Safety Respon- the The foregoing section does not define an sibility Act. The uninsured motor vehicle vehicle;” however, “uninsured motor is, coverage effect, liability a substitute part section is Safety of the Motor Vehicle policy by which the insurer becomes liable Responsibility Act and coverage is cor- negligence the or fault of the unin- related with Section 41-12-5 of the act.3 motorist; guaranty it contract post- (c) the promise ais to answer for the ing security of suspension or the debt, default, or miscarriage of another erator’s license reg- and the motor vehicle person. operator istration upon report of such of a
motor vehicle accident which had resulted State Farm was contractually bound to in bodily injury. provisions These are not however, coverage; there applicable to such “(1) or owner was an exclusion. The household or fami- if such owner had in ly effect at the time of exclusion is for protect- the of such accident an ing insurers from collusion which might respect to the motor disputes arise in intrafamily and from the Lyon Indemnity v. Hartford Accident and 25 Utah 2d tendency CROCKETT, spe- natural of insured to (concurring the one Justice strengthen enlarge him the case : cially) involves members of his household decision, I concur in the but desire family. practical The impossibility plain add these comments: seems facing an action of defending insurer accepted enough can a fact type explains includ- necessity of the main of tak- ing an exclusion in Since ing premiums paying out this insur- public policy support there is a valid ance policy was that she would thus be- exclusion from come an of an “insured motorist” instead would be nonsense for this exclusion difficulty “uninsured motorist.” The here ground constitute a substi- to activate the ap- arisen confronted has because of tuted coverage under parent between two conflict provisions. motor- The uninsured hand, on the one the extension to nul- become a device occupants of coverage to of the automobile lify household There is exclusion clauses. injured by “uninsured nothing in Safety Responsibility Act other, exclusion members that mandates such a result.5 plain- Farm is obliged Since State It has determined that the
tiff under the uninsured motorist family.1 was a Therefore member policy, points the other raised exception clearly would seem to peal by State Farm discussed. need not be from exclude him judgment against is re- argues, plausibili- without considerable versed, with an and this case is remanded ty, so that because he was excluded the ef- order to enter a mother “uninsured motorist.” State Farm. Farm is awarded costs. problem to be confronted re provi
solved
which of
here is:
the two
given priority.
sions
stated above should be
ELLETT
*4
In order
is
determine that
JJ., concur.
to
Kay,
Co.,
v.
Mutual
Insur.
4.
Farm Mutual
Automobile
Insurance Co.
36,
;
supra.
(1972)
1,
Ala.App.
Holt
48
proper
the entire
to look at
excep-
justified
ingless
overlapping
the reasonable
provisions appear
be
where
to
family.”
as to “members of the
conflict,
weight
pri
tion
give
or in
to
them
thrust
ority in accordance with the main
said,
just
Consistent with what
contract;
and this
conclusion,
persuasive
our
and further
sometimes involves consideration
also
is the fact that
policy.
that:
assumption,
proceed upon the
should
We
The term “uninsured automobile”
above,
noted
that the main
include:
the taking out and issuance of the
Myrtle Kay
was that
would be an “insured
“in-
An
defined herein
automobile
she in fact had
sured automobile.”
conformity
force a
law.3
regard
In this
it is noted
automo-
of members
exclusion as
insured,
Myrtle
bile driven
justi-
of the
an essential and well
is
was the
described as the
exclusion,
in the
fied
reasons stated
policy.
sured automobile in the
opinion.
main
to this:
As
my
an “unin-
is
that when the entire
caused
picture
comparatively
analyzed
light
recent
is
sured motorist”
of what has
law,
opinion,
innovation in
and in
and its
been said in the main
and in this
insurance
general purpose
supplement thereto,
reasonably
to extend
cannot
insurance
injuries resulting from acci-
take care of
concluded from the insurance contract
no
dents
other cars/’where there was
the “uninsured
extended cover-
motorist”
age
pur-
main
If the
con-
was intended
defeat the
accepted,
pose
pri-
making
tention were
of the
that of
insured,
coverage defeating
mary
extension of
an “insured mo-
torist,”
primary purpose
express
nor of obviating
exclu-
“in-
as members
to make his mother
sion
subject
Tayco,
323,
exceptions,
2.
v.
400 P.2d
this is
Seal
16
306,
Davenport
Dickenson,
regard
503;
I
be-
Kan.
the fact situation
this case as
301;
Enterprises,
ing one,
so because there was
Kasten v. Rod
See Aetna
A.2d 12.
force a
conformable to law.
Md.
Casualty
Surety
Kellam,
&
Va.
generality
stated that
if
is sometimes
McCarthy
287;
v. Motor
152 S.E.2d
denies
App.Div.2d 35,
Corp., 16
Vehicle Acc. Indem.
g.,
Fire
“uninsured.”
e.
General Accident
See
909;
on Insurance
N.Y.S.2d
Couch
Casualty
Corp.
Life Assurance
v. Aetna
&
Sec. 45:634.
Surety Co.,
208 Va.