Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4644-14T2
09-28-2016
MONA T. PATTERSON, Plaintiff, and JOSEPH F. AURIEMMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUIS HUERTA and ANIBAL D. AGUILAR, Defendants, and TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.
J. Bayard Smith, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (John Jude Pisano, attorney; Mr. Pisano, on the brief). Michael Edward Hrinewski argued the cause for respondent (Coughlin Duffy, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Hrinewski, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Yannotti and Gilson. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-4314-12. J. Bayard Smith, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (John Jude Pisano, attorney; Mr. Pisano, on the brief). Michael Edward Hrinewski argued the cause for respondent (Coughlin Duffy, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Hrinewski, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Joseph Auriemma appeals from a May 22, 2015 order that held defendant Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) did not have a duty to provide him with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage and, thus, granted summary judgment to Travelers. We affirm because the Travelers policy did not provide UIM coverage to Auriemma.
The underlying facts are not in dispute and were established in the summary judgment record. Plaintiffs Mona Patterson and Auriemma were involved in a motor vehicle accident in October 2012. Auriemma was driving a vehicle owned by Patterson and in which Patterson was a passenger. The vehicle was stopped at an intersection when another vehicle operated by defendant Luis Huerta rear-ended Patterson's vehicle. Auriemma suffered two herniated discs, which have caused him severe pain.
Plaintiffs Patterson and Auriemma sued Huerta, and the insurer of Huerta's vehicle settled by paying the policy limit of $100,000. Auriemma then sought UIM coverage from Travelers, which was the insurer of Patterson's vehicle. Travelers denied coverage and Auriemma brought suit.
Travelers moved for summary judgment contending that its policy did not provide UIM coverage to Auriemma. In that regard, Travelers argued that its policy provided UIM coverage to "Named Insured" and any "Family Member" of the named insured. While Auriemma had lived with Patterson for six years before the accident, he was neither a named insured nor married to or related by blood to Patterson. The trial court found that the Travelers policy was unambiguous and did not provide UIM coverage to Auriemma. Thus, the court granted Travelers summary judgment in an order dated May 22, 2015. Auriemma now appeals.
On appeal, Auriemma makes two arguments: (1) the policy is ambiguous and should be construed against Travelers; and (2) the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to Travelers because he had a reasonable expectation of UIM coverage under the policy. We reject both these arguments because the Travelers policy was clear and unambiguous and did not provide UIM coverage to Auriemma.
We review summary judgment decisions de novo and apply the same standard as the trial court. Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405-06 (2014). That is, we consider whether there are any material factual disputes and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. R. 4:46- 2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 520 (1995).
The issue on this appeal is purely a question of law involving the interpretation of the Travelers automobile policy. In making such an interpretation, we look to the plain meaning of the language of the policy. Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. Co., 121 N.J. 530, 537 (1990). Here, the Travelers policy is clear and unambiguous concerning the coverage for UIM.
The Travelers policy lists Patterson as the only "Named Insured." Auriemma is not listed as an insured on the declaration pages of the policy. Instead, Auriemma is identified as a "driver." Further, under "marital status" both Patterson and Auriemma are listed as "single." With regard to UIM coverage, the policy states that it provides coverage to any "insured," which it defines as the "Named Insured," any "Family Member" or "[a]nyone else while 'occupying' 'your covered auto' if the occupancy is [or is reasonably believed to be] with your permission." The policy goes on, however, to limit Travelers liability for any UIM claim for an insured who is not a "Named Insured" or "Family Member." In that regard, the policy states:
If any of the "insureds" is not a "Named Insured" or "Family Member" under this policy, our maximum limit of liability for all damages resulting from any one accident shall not exceed $15,000 per person. . . .
Here, the trial judge correctly found that Travelers did not have the duty to provide UIM coverage to Auriemma because Travelers' liability for UIM coverage to Auriemma was limited to $15,000, and Auriemma had already received $100,000 from the insurer covering Huerta's vehicle. Thus, Auriemma did not have UIM coverage under the clear and unambiguous terms of the Travelers policy.
Plaintiff contends that "Named Insured" includes anyone whose name appears on the declarations pages, including those who appear only as "Drivers." We reject this argument. Under a plain reading of the policy, the definition of "Named Insured" includes only the person named on the declarations pages as the "Named Insured."
In short, there is no ambiguity in the policy. Moreover, we reject the argument that Auriemma had a reasonable expectation that he would have UIM coverage. The provisions of the policy describing the UIM coverage are clear. Thus, a reasonable person in Auriemma's position could not expect coverage under the plain and unambiguous reading of the policy.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION