No. 80-436
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
DONALD W. SAYERS, et al.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial ~istrict,
In and for the County of Silver Bow.
Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Gene A. Picotte, Clancy, Montana
For Respondent:
D. L. Holland, Butte, Montana
Corette Law Firm, Butte, Montana
Henningsen, Purcell & Genzberger, Butte, Montana
Kaylene M. Rubick, Richmond, California
Anderson, Brown Law Firm, Billings, Montana
William N. Geagan, Butte, Montana
Submitted on briefs: April 8, 1981
Decided: May 26, 1981
Filed: MAY 2 6 1 Q
9
r # u 9.-1
'--
v Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e Company ( S a f e c o ) a p p e a l s from a n
a d v e r s e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Second J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow County. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o a
b i f u r c a t e d p r o c e e d i n g and s u b m i t t e d two i s s u e s f o r a d j u d i -
c a t i o n , r e s e r v i n g t h e r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l on damages i f
necessary. The i s s u e s s u b m i t t e d were:
1. Whether o r n o t t h e p l a i n t i f f , Donald S a y e r s , was,
a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e of t h e a c c i d e n t , "occupying" t h e
a u t o m o b i l e owned by Gary J . G a l e t t i w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of
t h e term "occupying" a s d e f i n e d i n t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y
i s s u e d t o G a l e t t i by S a f e c o .
2. Whether S a y e r s may s t a c k t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t
l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y p r o v i d e d by p o l i c i e s i s s u e d by S a f e c o t o
G a l e t t i on a u t o m o b i l e s o t h e r t h a n t h e a u t o m o b i l e S a y e r s w a s
"occupying" a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i d e d Sayers- was' (1) "occupying1'
t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e and ( 2 ) e n t i t l e d t o s t a c k t h e u n i n s u r e d
m o t o r i s t l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y on t h e S a f e c o p o l i c i e s c o v e r i n g
automobiles not involved i n the accident. W e concur w i t h
t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
Donald S a y e r s was i n j u r e d i n a n a c c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g
t h r e e c a r s , one o f which was owned by C h a r l e s Storm. The
a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d October 4 , 1978, on Kaw S t r e e t i n B u t t e ,
Montana.
Storm had a s k e d S a y e r s t o tune-up h i s 1.966 Mercury
automobile. S a y e r s completed t h e tune-up and a d v i s e d Storm
he s h o u l d r u n t h e e n g i n e t o c l e a n t h e c a r b u r e t o r . Storm
a g r e e d and l e f t t o buy some g a s o l i n e . However, t h e v e h i c l e
service
r a n o u t of g a s b e f o r e h e reached a / station. H e walked
t h e s h o r t d i s t a n c e back, o b t a i n e d a c a n of g a s o l i n e and
b a t t e r y jumper c a b l e s from S a y e r s and r o d e back t o h i s
s t a l l e d v e h i c l e w i t h a man named George Y a t e s . They w e r e
u n a b l e t o s t a r t S t o r m ' s c a r and Storm r e t u r n e d f o r S a y e r s '
help.
S a y e r s , Storm and Gary J . G a l e t t i t h e n d r o v e t o S t o r m ' s
c a r i n G a l e t t i ' s 1972 C h e v r o l e t Suburban i n t e n d i n g t o u s e
t h e v e h i c l e t o jump-start the car. G a l e t t i parked t e n t o
twelve f e e t i n f r o n t of and f a c i n g S t o r m ' s c a r t o f a c i l i t a t e
t h e u s e o f h i s v e h i c l e ' s b a t t e r y and t h e jumper c a b l e s .
gasoline
A f t e r t h e men g o t o u t , Storm poured some o f t h e . / i n t o h i s
t a n k , g o t i n h i s c a r and w a i t e d t o t u r n t h e i g n i t i o n k e y .
S a y e r s was s t a n d i n g between t h e v e h i c l e s , l e a n i n g u n d e r t h e
hood o f S t o r m ' s c a r f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p r i m i n g t h e c a r b u r e t o r
w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g g a s i n t h e c a n , w h e n a c a r d r i v e n by
Kaylene Rubick s t r u c k t h e r e a r o f S t o r m ' s c a r p r o p e l l i n g i t
forward. S a y e r s was p i n n e d between t h e G a l e t t i and Storm
v e h i c l e s a n d was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d .
Kaylene Rubick was u n i n s u r e d , however, S a y e r s , Storm
and G a l e t t i had t h e f o l l o w i n g u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t (UM) cov-
erage:
Insured Insurer UM L i m i t No. o f Total
vehicles
(1) a y e r s
S Automobile C l u b $25,000 2 $50,000
I n s u r a n c e Co.
( 2 ) G a l e t t i S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e $25,000 2 $50,000
(3)Storm A l l s t a t e Ins. $25,000 3 $75,000
S a f e c o c o n t e n d s S a y e r s was n o t " o c c u p y i n g " t h e G a l e t t i
v e h i c l e under t h e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n . Safeco supports i t s
c o n t e n t i o n w i t h numerous c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s
which have c o n s t r u e d t h e components of t h e s e e m i n g l y u n i -
v e r s a l i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n of " o c c u p y i n g " which by
p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n was " i n o r upon o r e n t e r i n g i n t o o r a l i g h t -
i n g from." The cases c i t e d by S a f e c o c o n t a i n a common e l e m e n t
of p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i n s u r e d v e h i c l e a s t h e b a s i s
f o r f i n d i n g coverage. S a f e c o c o n t e n d s S a y e r s w a s n o t "oc-
cupying" t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e a s a m a t t e r of law b e c a u s e he
w a s a t l e a s t t e n f e e t from t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e
of t h e a c c i d e n t .
The " p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t " t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether one
i s a n o c c u p a n t i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e under Montana law. This
C o u r t h a s developed a " r e a s o n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n " t e s t . The
i s s u e h e r e i s whether S a y e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e
i n j u r y w e r e s o r e a s o n a b l y connected t o t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e
t h a t , under t h e law, S a y e r s c o u l d b e s a i d t o be a n o c c u p a n t
w i t h i n t h e p o l i c y ' s meaning. Nelson v. Iowa Mut. I n s . Co.
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 82, 515 P.2d 362.
I n Nelson, a n e x e c u t o r b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e
d e c e d e n t ' s a u t o m o b i l e i n s u r e r f o r payment of f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s
under t h e d e c e d e n t ' s p o l i c y . The d e c e d e n t ' s c a r had s l i p p e d
o f f a n i c y c o u n t r y r o a d d u r i n g a ground b l i z z a r d . The
t e m p e r a t u r e was e i g h t d e g r e e s below z e r o . After leaving her
c a r , t h e d e c e d e n t proceeded 269 f e e t a l o n g a f e n c e and f e l l
i n t o an i r r i g a t i o n ditch. She a t t e m p t e d t o c r a w l back,
b u t d i e d of e x p o s u r e 143 f e e t from t h e c a r . The i n s u r e r
r e f u s e d payment of t h e f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s b e c a u s e t h e d e c e d e n t
was n o t occupying t h e i n s u r e d a u t o m o b i l e . W e held the
d e c e d e n t was "occupying" t h e v e h i c l e and, t h u s , was i n s u r e d
under t h e p o l i c y .
I n Nelson, t h i s C o u r t , w h i l e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a g r e e i n g
w i t h t h e r e s u l t , c i t e d C a r t a v . P r o v i d e n c e Washington In-
demnity Company ( 1 9 5 6 ) r 143 Conn. 372, 122 A.2d 734, 736,
and a g r e e d w i t h t h e C o n n e c t i c u t c o u r t t h a t " [ s ] ome r e a s o n a b l e
l e n g t h of time must be allowed a p e r s o n , a f t e r g e t t i n g o u t ,
f o r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f a c t s which c a n r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d
from t h o s e i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . " The s t a n d a r d e n u n c i a t e d
i n Nelson i s whether t h e " a c t i v i t y [ i s ] r e a s o n a b l y c a r r i e d
o u t and [ i s ] r e a s o n a b l y connected w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e
vehicle." 515 P.2d a t 364.
S a y e r s r o d e i n t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e f o r t h e s i n g l e pur-
p o s e of j u m p - s t a r t i n g the disabled c a r using G a l e t t i ' s
battery. H i s a t t e m p t e d a s s i s t a n c e was u n d e n i a b l y d e p e n d e n t upon
and t h u s r e a s o n a b l y c o n n e c t e d t o t h e G a l e t t i v e h i c l e .
A t t h e moment t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t s t r u c k t h e r e a r of t h e
d i s a b l e d v e h i c l e , S a y e r s had n o t completed t h e c o n t e m p l a t e d
jump-start. Consequently, w e h o l d S a y e r s was "occupying" t h e
Galetti vehicle within the policy definition.
S a f e c o n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t i f S a y e r s i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be
i n s u r e d , he should n o t be allowed t o " s t a c k " 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 under t h e p o l i c i e s f o r which he p a i d no
premium. S a f e c o concedes Kemp v. A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. (1979),
- Mont. -, 601 P.2d 20, 36 St.Rep. 1381, allowed s t a c k i n g
where t h e d e c e d e n t had n o t been t h e p o l i c y h o l d e r .
I n Kemp, t h e r e w e r e two i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s . One p o l i c y
was i s s u e d t o t h e h o s t d r i v e r c o v e r i n g two v e h i c l e s , and a
second was i s s u e d t o t h e d e c e d e n t ' s p a r e n t s c o v e r i n g t h r e e
v e h i c l e s . S e p a r a t e premiums f o r t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t
p r o t e c t i o n s were p a i d under t h e p o l i c i e s and t h e p o l i c y -
h o l d e r s , n o t t h e d e c e d e n t , p a i d t h e premiums. There w e h e l d :
" I n a p p l y i n g Montana law, w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e
uninsured m o t o r i s t coverages a r e t o be ' s t a c k e d ' ;
t h a t i s , i n p o l i c i e s of i n s u r a n c e which c o v e r two
o r more v e h i c l e s , i f a s e p a r a t e premium h a s been
charged and c o l l e c t e d on e a c h v e h i c l e f o r unin-
sured v e h i c l e coverage, t h e insured i s e n t i t l e d
t o r e c o v e r under 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 sums
found l e g a l l y r e c o v e r a b l e up t o t h e a g g r e g a t e sum
o f t h e c o v e r a g e s on a l l t h e motor v e h i c l e s s o
insured. S u l l i v a n v . Doe ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. 50,
495 P.2d 193; Mountain West Farm Bureau v . Neal
(I-976), 169 Mont. 317, 547 P.2d 79; C h a f f e e v .
U.S. F i d . & Guar. Co., e t a l . (1979) , Mont., 591
P.2d 1 1 0 2 , 36 St.Rep. 3 9 8 . " 601 P.2d a t 24.
S a f e c o c o n t e n d s o n l y a n i n s u r e d who pays t h e premiums
f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o v e r a g e should be a l l o w e d t o s t a c k , c i t -
i n g s e v e r a l o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t have s o h e l d . W e are
n o t persuaded by t h e a u t h o r i t y c i t e d . The r u l e of Kemp and
the authorities cited therein control. S a y e r s was a n i n -
s u r e d a s d e f i n e d by t h e p o l i c y . Under t h e s e f a c t s t h e r e i s
no r e a s o n t o d i s t i n g u i s h between p e r s o n s i n s u r e d and p o l i c y -
h o l d e r s who have a c t u a l l y p a i d premiums. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n
f o r s t a c k i n g l i e s n o t i n who h a s p a i d f o r t h e e x t r a pro-
t e c t i o n , b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n h a s been p u r c h a s e d .
The b e n e f i t s f l o w t o a l l p e r s o n s i n s u r e d .
The judgment of 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 concur:
e