Thе plaintiff, Alan Sylvestre, commenced this action against the defendant, United Services Automobile Association Casualty Insurance Company, seeking uninsured motorist benefits for injuries sustained when he was struck by an automobile while crossing the street. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment from which the plaintiff appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court found that “[t]he parties agree [d] that the vehicle struck the plaintiff, that the driver stopped and wаited for several minutes while the plaintiff sat down and walked around, that the plaintiff believed he would not need medical attention, and that the plaintiff ultimately sеnt the driver on his way.” The plaintiff did
The defendant sought summary judgment claiming that the plaintiff could not sustain his burden of proof that he was injured by an uninsured motorist. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and issued a memorandum of decision in which it determined: “It is difficult for this court to сomprehend why an insurance company should have to pay for an insured’s injury when that insured chose to dismiss the driver because he was more concernеd with getting to class on time. On these facts, it is undisputed that the driver was available to the plaintiff. The driver waited while the plaintiff assessed his injury, but the plaintiff affirmatively dismissed him. Although cover
We initially note the standard of review of a trial court decision granting a motion for summary judgment. Practice Book § 384 mandates that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A “material fact” is a fact that will make a difference in the result of the case. Hammer v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co.,
Under the provisions of the plaintiffs automobile liability insurance policy, the plaintiff may be entitled tо uninsured motorist coverage if he was struck by a “hit and run vehicle” whose operator or owner cannot be identified. The parties have concentrated on the issue of whether a claimant seeking uninsured motorist coverage as a result of a hit and run vehicle has a duty to exercise reasonable diligеnce to ascertain the identity and insurance status of the operator of such a vehicle.
A review of the plaintiffs automobile liability insurance policy reveals that one of the components of the policy’s definition of an uninsured motor vehicle is a hit and run vehicle whose owner or operator cannot be identified. The term hit and run vehicle, however, is not defined in the definitions section or anywhere else in the plaintiffs automobile liability insurance policy.
“Under our law, the tеrms of an insurance policy are to be construed according to the general rules of contract construction.” Simses v. North American Co. for Life & Health Ins.,
We look to dictionary definitions to ascertain the ordinary meaning of a “hit and run vehicle.” See Wrin v. State,
We concur with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, although on a different basis. This court may, however, affirm a trial court’s decision even though it is based on other grounds if the same result is required by law. Kelley v. Bonney,
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
Part C of the insurance policy issued by the defendant described thе policy’s uninsured motorist coverage. The policy obligated the defendant to pay damages because of bodily injury arising “out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle." The policy defined the term “uninsured motor vehicle” as “a land motor vehicle or trailer of any type:
“1. To which no bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident
“2. For which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or policies applicable at the time of the accident is less than the sum of the limits of liability for Uninsured Motorists Coverage applicable to each vehicle for this coverage under this policy.
“3. Which is a hit and run vehicle whose operator or owner cannot be identified and which hits:
“a. you or any family member;
“b. a vehicle which you or any family member are оccupying; or “c. your covered auto.
“4. To which a bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident but the bonding or insuring company:
“a. denies coverage; or
“b. is or becomes insolvent.” (Emphasis added.)
Thе parties stipulated that the owner or operator of the automobile that struck the plaintiff could not be identified after the operator left the scene of the accident.
The trial court framed the issue as “whether an insured has any obligation to ascertain the identity of a tortfeasor before requesting uninsured motorist coverage from his own insurance company.”