No. 14574
IN THE S P E E COUHT O THE STATE O rnrnANA
UR M F F
1979
C N I J. VELTE et al.
O NE ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants,
-VS-
ALLsI'ATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
E m J. Dolve, Jr., Billings, Wntana
Calvin A.Calton, Billings, Wntana
Rodd HamMn argued, Billings, mntana
For Respondent:
Anderson, Symnes, B,
- Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings,
plbntana
Richard F. Cebull, Billings, Wntana
Subsnitted: March 19, 1979
-- --
Decided: APR 1 7 1979
.'" -
Filed: T i' ' , -
Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal brought by the survivors and the
personal representative of the estate of Oscar F. Johnson.
Johnson was killed as the result of an automobile collision
in Billings, Montana, in July 1976. At the time of the
accident, Johnson was a passenger in an automobile driven by
John Schaefer and insured by defendant Allstate Insurance
Company. Schaefer's policy with Allstate had a liability
limit of $10,000 as well as an uninsured motorist endorse-
ment. The other automobile involved in the accident was not
insured.
Johnson's heirs and personal representative filed
claims with Allstate, which in turn offered to pay the
claimants the policy limit of $10,000, applicable to the
injury or death of one person. The heirs and personal
representative contended they were entitled to more compen-
sation, arguing that the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility
Act, at section 53-438, R.C.M. 1947, now section 61-6-103
MCA, required the insurer to pay at least $25,000 in compen-
sation for Oscar Johnson's death.
At Allstate's suggestion, appellants commenced a
declaratory action in the District Court, Yellowstone County,
seeking to have the policy limits declared to be $25,000
rather than $10,000. The ~istrictCourt ruled in favor of
defendant Allstate's motion to dismiss on September 7, 1978.
In a memorandum accompanying that order, the District Court
stated the issue presented to it as whether the law required
liability coverage of at least $25,000, regardless of the
agreed-upon terms of the policy:
"The c o m p l a i n t s e e k s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Montana
l a w r e q u i r e s motor v e h i c l e l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e
f o r b o d i l y i n j u r y t o be i n t h e sum of $25,000
r e g a r d l e s s of any lesser s t a t e d l i m i t s i n t h e
i s s u e d p o l i c y ($10,000 i n t h i s c a s e ) . . ."
On a p p e a l t h e h e i r s and p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r e s e n t
a new theory--namely, t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, now
s e c t i o n 33-23-201 MCA, e n t i t l e s them t o g r e a t e r compensation
t h a n t h e s t a t e d l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s of t h e A l l s t a t e p o l i c y .
A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4403 r e q u i r e s a n i n s u r e r
t o p r o v i d e a t l e a s t $25,000 p e r p e r s o n and $50,000 p e r
a c c i d e n t o f u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t c o v e r a g e and t h a t t h e y a r e
t h e r e f o r e e n t i t l e d t o $15,000 of t h a t c o v e r a g e under t h e
u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t endorsement of J o h n s o n ' s p o l i c y w i t h
Allstate. W conclude t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o r r e c t l y
e
d e c i d e d t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o i t , and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s may
n o t r a i s e , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , t h e i s s u e of whe-
t h e r t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s under
Schaefer's policy.
A. A p p e l l a n t ' s s t a t u t o r y l i m i t s arqument.
The i s s u e o f whether a n a u t o m o b i l e owner must have a
p a r t i c u l a r amount of l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e o r l i a b i l i t y i n s u r -
a n c e c o v e r i n g p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s h a s been b e f o r e t h i s
C o u r t on s e v e r a l p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s . I n N o r t h e r n Assurance
Company o f America v . Truck I n s u r a n c e Exchange ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1
Mont. 132, 439 P.2d 760, t h e i s s u e was whether a n e x c l u s i o n
i n a l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y
p o l i c y of t h e Motor V e h i c l e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t . The
Court reasoned t h a t t h e exclusion w a s " n o t v i o l a t i v e of
p u b l i c p o l i c y " b e c a u s e t h e law r e q u i r e d l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e
i n o n l y c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d i n s t a n c e s , and t h a t a p o l i c y which
t h e owner v o l u n t a r i l y o b t a i n e d w a s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e c o v e r -
a g e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Act. 151
Mont. a t 136-37, 439 P.2d a t 763.
I n B o l d t v. S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s u r a n c e Co.
( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 337, 443 P.2d 33, a n i n j u r e d p l a i n t i f f
s o u g h t t o have a c l a u s e i n a l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y d e c l a r e d v o i d
because it c o n f l i c t e d w i t h t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t .
The C o u r t a g a i n r u l e d t h a t t h e A c t ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s " a r e n o t
a b s o l u t e b u t a r e a p p l i c a b l e under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s and
a r e s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s and e x c e p t i o n s . " 151
Mont. a t 341, 443 P.2d a t 35. The C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e
l a w r e q u i r e d a n a u t o m o b i l e owner t o c a r r y l i a b i l i t y i n s u r -
a n c e a s p r o o f of f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n o n l y c e r t a i n
s p e c i f i e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and o t h e r w i s e " i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o
p o s t proof o f f u t u r e f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t a l l . " 151
Mont. a t 343, 443 P.2d a t 36. S i n c e a n owner may n o t b e
required t o purchase l i a b i l i t y insurance a t a l l , t h e Court
concluded t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o p o l i c i e s
i s s u e d and c e r t i f i e d a s proof of f i n a n a c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
had no a p p l i c a t i o n t o p o l i c i e s which owners v o l u n t a r i l y
obtain. 1 5 1 Mont. a t 343-44, 443 P.2d a t 36. See a l s o ,
U n i v e r s a l U n d e r w r i t e r s I n s u r a n c e Co. v . S t a t e Farm Mutual
Automobile I n s u r a n c e Co. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 , 531
P.2d 668, 672.
Appellants argued b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t
s e v e r a l amendments t o s e c t i o n 53-438 changed t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
o f t h e s t a t u t e making i t a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l a u t o m o b i l e l i a -
b i l i t y p o l i c i e s i s s u e d i n Montana. They make no mention o f
t h a t argument i n t h e i r b r i e f s on a p p e a l , however.
Under t h e r u l e e s t a b l i s h e d i n N o r t h e r n Assurance and
B o l d t , t h e argument t h a t t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t
r e q u i r e s t h e i n s u r e r t o i s s u e l i a b i l i t y p o l i c i e s w i t h no
l e s s t h a n $25,000 c o v e r a g e must b e r e j e c t e d . In t h i s case,
a s i n N o r t h e r n Assurance and B o l d t , t h e owner v o l u n t a r i l y
obtained t h e l i a b i l i t y coverage. There i s no s t a t u t o r y
b a s i s upon which t o r e q u i r e t h i s v o l u n t a r y p o l i c y t o b e
c o n s t r u e d a s p r o v i d i n g more t h a n t h e $10,000 c o v e r a g e which
i t s t e r m s show.
B. A p p e l l a n t s ' Uninsured M o t o r i s t Argument.
A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t s e c t i o n 40-4403 r e q u i r e s t h e
i n s u r e r t o p r o v i d e a t l e a s t $25,000/50,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t
c o v e r a g e a l o n g w i t h any l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y i t i s s u e s , and t h a t
t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o $15,000 compensation from t h e o w n e r ' s
uninsured m o t o r i s t policy with A l l s t a t e . Their position i s
t h a t b e c a u s e t h e owner had o n l y $10,000 of l i a b i l i t y c o v e r -
a g e , h e was u n i n s u r e d t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e d i f f e r e n c e be-
tween h i s l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e and t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t
c o v e r a g e r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e .
A r e v i e w of t h e b r i e f s of b o t h p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d i c a t e s t h i s argument i s r a i s e d f o r t h e
f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s p r e s e n t e d
w i t h , and d e c i d e d o n l y , t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e S a f e t y
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t ' s coverage requirements a p p l i e d t o t h e
owner's l i a b i l i t y policy. T h e r e f o r e , a p p e l l a n t s may n o t now
raise t h e i s s u e of uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage.
I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a p a r t y "may n o t change h i s
t h e o r y on a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t from t h a t advanced i n t h e
t r i a l court." Chamberlain v . Evans ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont . I
591 P.2d 237, 240, 36 St.Rep. 419, 423-24. See a l s o ,
S t u r d e v a n t v . M i l l s (19781, - Mont. , 580 P.2d 923,
925, 35 St.Rep. 839, 842. A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e , however, t h a t
t h e theory of uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage p r e s e n t s a ques-
t i o n of law o n l y , and t h e r e f o r e need n o t b e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n advance of t h e a p p e a l . They u r g e f u r t h e r
t h a t a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n p r e s e n t s a unique s i t u a -
t i o n , because such an a c t i o n i s brought s o l e l y f o r t h e
p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g i s s u e s of law, and t h a t an a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h e s e i s s u e s - -
d e novo.
The Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments A c t , s e c t i o n 93-8907,
R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 27-8-312 MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a l l 1
o r d e r s , judgments and d e c r e e s under t h i s a c t may b e reviewed
a s o t h e r o r d e r s , judgments and d e c r e e s . " Only one Montana
d e c i s i o n d i r e c t l y c o n s t r u e s s e c t i o n 93-8907 and t h a t d e c i -
s i o n concerns a p p e l l a t e review of f a c t u a l findings:
" I n a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n . . . the
d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s i s s u e s of f a c t i n
t h e same manner a s i s s u e s of f a c t i n o t h e r pro-
c e e d i n g s . S e c t i o n 93-8909, R.C.M. 1947. W e
r e v i e w t h e a c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e
same a s i n o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . S e c t i o n 93-8907,
R.C.M. 1947." S t a t e Highway Commission v . West
G r e a t F a l l s Flood C o n t r o l and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t
( 1 9 7 0 ) , 155 Mont. 1 5 7 , 171, 468 P.2d 753, 761.
C o u r t s i n o t h e r Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments Act
j u r i s d i c t i o n s have c o n s i d e r e d more p r e c i s e l y t h e i s s u e of
whether a n a p p e l l a n t h a s more l a t i t u d e t o a l t e r h i s t h e o r y
on a p p e a l i n a d e c l a r a t o r y a c t i o n t h a n i n o t h e r t y p e s of
c i v i l a c t i o n s , and have concluded t h a t h e d o e s n o t . Board
o f S u p e r v i s o r s o f F a i r f a x County v . W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 216 Va.
49, 216 S.E.2d 33, 39 n . 3 ; C i t y of S t . L o u i s v . M i s s o u r i
Commission on Human R i g h t s (Mo. 1 9 7 4 ) , 517 S.W.2d 65, 71;
Crowe v . Wheeler (Colo. 1 9 6 8 ) , 439 P.2d 50, 53; Goldberg v .
Valve C o r p o r a t i o n o f America ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 89 Ill.App.2d 383, 233
N.E.2d 85, 90. I n each of t h e s e d e c i s i o n s t h e c o u r t s r u l e d
t h a t t h e y would n o t d e t e r m i n e l e g a l i s s u e s which t h e p a r t i e s
f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , e i t h e r by o b j e c t i o n o r
by p l e a d i n g s .
I t i s c l e a r t h a t a p p e l l a n t s h e r e have changed t h e i r
t h e o r y on a p p e a l . A t t h e D i s t r i c t Court l e v e l , they sought
a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t s e c t i o n 53-438, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e d t h e
i n s u r e r t o p r o v i d e S c h a e f e r w i t h $25,000 o f motor v e h i c l e
l i a b i l i t y c o v e r a g e ( p a r a g r a p h s V - V I I o f c o m p l a i n t , and
p a r a g r a p h 1 o f p r a y e r f o r judgment). On a p p e a l , t h e y s t a t e
a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t t h e o r y , i n v o l v i n g a n u n i n s u r e d mo-
t o r i s t claim: "Because A l l s t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e l i a b i l i t y
c o v e r a g e e q u a l l i n g t h e minimum amount s e t a t s e c t i o n 53-438,
R.C.M. [1947], (Supp. 1 9 7 7 ) , S c h a e f f e r s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d
a n u n i n s u r e d d r i v e r and V e l t e , e t a l . , are entitled -
to
r e c o v e r u n d e r t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t s e c t i o n - -e A l l s t a t e
of t h
policy." (Emphasis added.) The r u l e a p p l i e d t o new t h e o r i e s
r a i s e d on a p p e a l i s t h e same f o r a c t i o n s b r o u g h t under t h e
D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment A c t a s i t i s f o r o t h e r c i v i l a c t i o n s .
Therefore, w e w i l l n o t determine a p p e l l a n t s ' uninsured
m o t o r i s t claim.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur:
Q4-45
ustices