Petition for declaratory judgment (RSA 491: 22) to determine the maximum limits of liability under the uninsured motorists endorsements of two substantially identical liability policies issued by the plaintiff Maryland Casualty Company to the defendant Ethеlyn G. Howe and by the plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to the defendant Ronald Howe. Ronald, the named insured in his own policy, is the son of Ethelyn and he was injured while a passenger in an uninsurеd motor vehicle at a time when he was a member of the household of Ethelyn and an insured under her policy. Each policy provided for $10,000 coverage under the uninsured motorists endorsements. The defendants contend they are entitled to a total *423 coverage of $20,000 which is $10,000 under the uninsured motorists endorsement contained in each policy. The plaintiffs contend the total coveragе under the uninsured motorists endorsements is $10,000, which is $5,000 under each policy. This specific question was reservеd and transferred without ruling by Grant, J. The facts are not disputed.
The policies contained the following conditions under the heading “Other Insurance”:
“With respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an autоmobile not owned by a named insured under this endorsement, the insurance hereunder shall apply only as excess insurance over any other similar insurance available to such occupant, аnd this insurance shall then apply only in the amount by which the applicable limit of liability of this endorsement exceeds the sum of the applicable limits of liability of all such other insurance.
“With respeсt to bodily injury to an insured while occupying or through being struck by an uninsured automobile, if such insured is a named insured undеr other similar insurance available to him, then the damages shall be deemed not to exceеd the higher of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance, and the cоmpany shall not be liable under this endorsement for a greater proportion of the apрlicable limit of liability of this endorsement than such limit bears to the sum of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance.
“Subject to the foregoing paragraphs, if the insured has other similar insurance available to him against a loss covered by this endorsement, the company shall not be liable under this endorsement for a greater proportion of such loss than the applicable limit of liability hereunder bears to the total applicable limits of liability of all valid and сollectible insurance against such loss.”
The financial responsibility law of this state requires a minimum cоverage of $10,000 for bodily injuries to a single claimant and $20,000 for any one accident resulting in bodily injuries to mоre than one person. RSA 268:1 VII (supp); Laws 1955, 76:1. Since 1957 uninsured motorist insurance has been required with the same minimum limits. RSA 268:15 (supp); RSA 412:2-a (supp); Laws 1957, 305:8, 10. The purpose of uninsured motorist insurance is to remedy the obvious deficiency in financial responsibility legislation which did not protect those injured by financially irresponsible motorists and the hit-and-run operator.
Kirouac
v.
*424
Healey,
The defendants claim that they arе entitled to a total coverage of $20,000 or $10,000 under each of the plaintiffs’ insurance policies. This would be so if the conditions in the insurance policies, quoted in the second paragraph of the opinion, were repugnant to the statute (RSA 268:15 (supp)). See
Bryant
v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
The design and purpose of the uninsured motorist insurance statute was to provide protection only up to the minimum statutory limits for bodily injuries caused by financially irresрonsible motorists. The statute was not designed to provide the insured with greater insurance protection than would have been available had the insured been injured by an operator with a policy containing minimum statutory limits.
Chandler
v.
Government Employees Ins. Co.,
Remanded.