This is an action by an insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment as to its potential exposure from a policy of automobile liability insurance issued under the Financial Resрonsibility Law (the Law) to an insured subsequently involved in an automobile accident.
The company issued the policy to the insured in the amount of $100,000. A financial responsibility filing was made with the Motor Vehicles Division of the Department of Transportation (the Division), as required by ORS 486.411. The insured subsequently failed to make the premium payments, and the policy was cancelled effective August 31, 1975, by notice to the insured in accordance with the policy terms. The company failed, however, to filе a financial responsibility notice of cancellation with the Division, as required by ORS 486.506(2). The insured was invоlved in an accident on October 9, 1975. At that time ORS 486.011(7)(a) required that financial responsibility be demonstrаted in the amount of $10,000. The issue in this case is whether, given the failure to file the notice of canсellation, the limit of the company’s responsibility is $10,000, the amount required by the Law, or $100,000, the original amount of the policy. The company appeals from a judgment of the trial court that the limit of the company’s liability is $100,000.
ORS 486.506(2) provides:
******
"(2) The policy of insurance for which the certificate is given shall not be canceled or terminated except upon the giving of 10 days’ prior written notice to the division.
* * * * ”
ORS 486.541 provides:
"(1) Every motor vehicle liability insurance policy issued for delivery in this state shall state the name and address of the named insured, the coverage affordedhy the policy, the premium charged therefor, the policy рeriod, and the limits of liability, and shall contain an *274 agreement or indorsement which provides that the insurance is provided thereundеr in accordance with the coverage defined in this chapter as respects bodily injury аnd death or property damage, or both, and is subject to all the provisions of this chaptеr.
"(2) Every motor vehicle liability insurance policy issued for delivery in this state shall provide liability coverage to at least the limits specified in subsection (7) of ORS 486.011.” (Emphasis added.)
ORS 486.566, on which this case turns, provides:
"Any policy which grants thе coverage required for a motor vehicle liability insurance policy under this chaptеr may also grant any lawful coverage in excess of or in addition to the required coverage, and such excess or additional coverage shall not be subject to the provisions оf this chapter. With respect to a policy which grants such excess or additional coverage the term 'motor vehicle liability insurance policy’ shall apply only to that part оf the coverage which is required by this chapter. The requirements for a motor vehicle liability insurаnce policy may be fulfilled by the policies of one or more insurance carriers which policies together meet such requirements.” (Emphasis added.)
The company contends that ORS 486.566 exempts it from responsibility under the policy except for the amount of $10,000 required by the Law. Dеfendants, on the other hand, contend that ORS 486.566 has nothing to do with the issue of policy "limits” but by its terms has only to do with the separate issue of policy "coverage.” They argue that "coverage” refers only to the risks insured against while "limits of liability” refers to the monetary amount of insurance. To show that the legislature distinguished between the two, they point to ORS 486.541, which separately mentions "the coverage afforded” and "the limits of liability.”
To decide this case it is our duty to divine the legislature’s intent in using the wоrd "coverage” in ORS 486.566. No cases cited by the parties or found by the court are of help tо us because none involves a statute with similar wording. In common usage "coverage” is frequently еmployed in a general way to *275 include both the risks insured against and the monetary amount of insuranсe, as in the question, "How much is your coverage?” Being mindful of the distinction made in ORS 486.541, we could bring ourselves to agree with defendants that "coverage” has a more limited statutory meaning were it not fоr the particular wording of ORS 486.566, which speaks of "coverage in excess of or in addition to” the coverage required by the provisions of the Law. It is our observation that the word "excess” is used in connection with monetary limits of insurance and not in connection with types of risks insured against. It is therefore our opinion that the legislature, by its use of such word, intended the provisions of the statute to encompass not only the risk insured against but also the monetary amount of insurance.
In additiоn, no logical reason has been advanced, nor does one occur to us, why the legislаture would make any distinction, for the purposes of the statute, between the risks insured against and thе amount of the insurance.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed with instructions to enter a judgment limiting plaintiff’s liability to $10,000.