From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wardlaw v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Superior Court at New Haven
Mar 14, 2007
2007 Ct. Sup. 6064 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

Opinion

No. CV05-5001108-S

Memorandum Filed March 14, 2007


Insurance — Uninsured Motorist Coverage — Covered Vehicles — UIM Statutes Do Not Apply to Box-shaped Ambulances. The uninsured motorist laws do not apply to box-shaped ambulances with a driver section in the front and a rear box for transporting and treating patients. Therefore a self-insured municipality is not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to an employee injured in an accident while transporting a patient in such a vehicle. The opinion presents a useful discussion of the various classifications of motor vehicles to which the UIM statutes apply.


In this case the plaintiff was an employee of the city's fire department. He alleges he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle driven by a negligent tortfeasor who was uninsured. He has now sued the city which is a self-insurer. Our court has held that self-insurers are "subject to the underinsured motorist coverage requirements pursuant to §§ 38a-334 and 38a-336," Willoughby v. New Haven, 254 Conn. 404, 431, fn. 24 (§ 38a-336 provides also for uninsured motorist coverage).

At the time of the accident the plaintiff was a passenger in a 1999 International 4700 ambulance which was registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles having an Ambulance Plate Number of 2330.

The city has now filed a motion for summary judgment claiming under the Willoughby case the city is not obligated to provide uninsured motorist coverage to the plaintiff. To address the claim raised by the defendant city the relevant statutory scheme must be set forth. The statutes define the vehicles as to which uninsured and underinsured requirements apply.

Section 38a-336 says that "(a)(1) Each automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance, herein called uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 38a-334 . . ." Section 38a-334 says in relevant part

CT Page 6065

(a) The Insurance Commissioner shall adopt regulations with respect to minimum provisions to be included in automobile liability insurance policies issued after the effective date of such regulations and covering private passenger motor vehicles, as defined in subsection (e) of section 38a-363, motor vehicles with a commercial registration, as defined in section 14-1, motorcycles, as defined in section 14-1, motor vehicles used to transport passengers for hire, motor vehicles in livery service, as defined in section 13b-101, and vanpool vehicles, as defined in section 14-1, registered or principally garaged in this state.

Section 14-1(14) defines "commercial registration" as follows:

(14) Commercial registration means the type of registration required for any motor vehicle designed or used to transport merchandise, freight or persons in connection with a business enterprise, unless a more specific type of registration is authorized and issued by the commissioner for such class of vehicle.

Section 38a-363(e) defines private passenger motor vehicle in the following way:

(e) "Private passenger motor vehicle" means a: (1) Private passenger type automobile; (2) station-wagon-type automobile; (3) camper-type motor vehicle; (4) high-mileage-type motor vehicle, as defined in section 14-1; (5) truck-type motor vehicle with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less, registered as a passenger motor vehicle, as defined in said section, or as a passenger and commercial motor vehicle, as defined in said section, or used for farming purposes; or (6) a vehicle with a commercial registration, as defined in subdivision (12) of said section. It does not include a motorcycle or motor vehicle used as a public or livery conveyance.

The regulations adopted by the insurance commissioner mirror the foregoing statutorily defined categories.

As the city's brief points out the court in Willoughby makes clear "that only those classes of motor vehicle enumerated in § 38a-334 fall within the mandate of § 38a-336 requiring underinsured motorist coverage." 254 Conn. at pp. 419-20. The courts have no power to expand the coverage requirements based on their notion of what might be a more equitable and consistent statutory scheme.

The court will try to analyze each of the statutory categories set forth in § 38a-334(a):

(A) Private passenger motor vehicle.

The statute defining this type of vehicle, § 38a-363e, which § 38a-334 refers to, is broken down into six categories.

(1) private passenger type automobile

Clearly the vehicle involved in this incident is not of the "type" that would rationally characterize it as a "private passenger type automobile." The use of the word "type" is significant. As Judge Hale noted in Piersa v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 34 Conn. L. Rptr. 542 (2003), "the statute is concerned primarily with designating vehicles by their type, i.e., `general form, structure, plan, or style' as defined in Webster's Dictionary, rather than by their use." Attached to the city's motion are pictures of this ambulance. It is clearly the common type of box-shaped ambulance vehicle with a section for the driver or other passengers and a rear box-shaped portion presumably used for the transportation of people requiring hospital care.

This vehicle is not then a "private passenger type automobile" (emphasis by the court).

(2) station-wagon type automobile (3) camper-type motor vehicle

A visual observation of the vehicle makes clear that the subject vehicle does not fit within either of these categories.

(4) high mileage type motor vehicle as defined in § 14-1(36)

There is nothing to indicate this garden variety ambulance meets the definition of a high mileage vehicle and in its opposition brief and at oral argument the plaintiff made no such claim.

(5) Truck type motor vehicle with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less, registered as a passenger motor vehicle or as a passenger and commercial motor vehicle or used for farming purposes

For the definitions we must look to § 14-1. Subsection (63) defines "passenger motor vehicle." It says that such a vehicle means one "used for the private transportation of persons and their personal belongings." An ambulance is not used for the "private" transportation of "persons and their belongings." It is used to bring people to hospitals. In fact an ambulance which by its registration has a certificate to operate as such is defined not by subsections (62) or (63) but by subsection (5) of § 14-1 — it is an authorized emergency vehicle. Subsection 62 defines a "passenger and commercial motor vehicle" as a vehicle for private passenger and commercial purposes which is eligible for combination registration. As an ambulance this vehicle cannot be defined as being used for "private passenger and commercial purposes." Furthermore, it cannot be registered as a "passenger motor vehicle" or as a "passenger and commercial motor vehicle." An affidavit submitted by the Chief of the city Fire Services Department and attached to the defendant's motion indicates that pursuant to § 19a-181 of the General Statutes this ambulance vehicle carried an ambulance registration. Section 19a-181 is mandatory in nature — each ambulance "shall be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles." The purpose of the registration requirement is to ensure the safety of these vehicles, a safety certificate from the Public Health Commissioner must be presented to secure the registration. The vehicle must be inspected regularly and the certificate of registration can be revoked if the commissioner finds safety standards are not met. But the point is that no matter why a special type of registration is required — here to insure safety — a special ambulance registration is necessary for the vehicle to be operated as an ambulance. The complaint defines the vehicle as an ambulance and the pictures attached to the defendant's motion allow no other characterization.

Attached to the Chief's affidavit is a copy of the registration issue for this vehicle. It is the standard registration issued to vehicles with the designation of this vehicle as an ambulance and the usual admonition that it be carried in the vehicle at all times.

Finally referring back to the language of subsection (5) of § 38a-363(e) there is no claim that the vehicle is being used for "farming purposes."

(6) A vehicle with a commercial registration as defined in subdivision (12) of section 14-1 (It is really subdivision 14)

Subdivision 14 says that a commercial registration means that type of registration "designed or used to transport merchandise, freight or persons in connection with any business enterprise, unless a more specific type of registration is authorized and issued by the commissioner for such class of vehicle."

The subject vehicle fails inclusion on both scores. It is a vehicle owned and operated by the local fire department — hardly what one would commonly define as an adjunct to a "business enterprise." But beyond that the vehicle requires a specific type of registration (see just completed discussion which the commissioner issues "for such class of vehicle"). This ambulance qua ambulance is a member of that class.

The court concludes that this ambulance does not fall within the definition of a private passenger motor vehicle under § 38a-334. It does not meet the definition of a vehicle with a commercial registration (see just completed discussion).

(B)

Also none of the other categories defined in § 38a-334(a) encompass this subject vehicle. It is not a motorcycle. It is not used to transport passengers for hire, it is not in livery service, nor is it a van pool vehicle — in a word it is an ambulance.

Since this ambulance does not meet the definition of any of the vehicles described in § 38a-334(a), § 38a-336(a) does not apply and the court concludes that the city need not have provided uninsured motorist coverage for this vehicle. The city's motion is therefore granted.

It should be noted that our court in Willoughby has stated self-insurers must provide uninsured and underinsured coverage. Applying the Augustinian Dictum the case is therefore closed. But it is interesting to note that some states have held that their statutes mandating such coverage do not apply to self-insurers since no policy exists with regard to self-insurers — section 38a-336 does begin with the words "each automobile liability insurance policy shall provide insurance, herein called uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage." See cases cited in 27 ALR4th 1266 and supplement, "Applicability of Uninsured Motorist Statutes to Self-Insurers." But as indicated that is not the law in our state per Willoughby and this court, of course, has not applied it.


Summaries of

Wardlaw v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Superior Court at New Haven
Mar 14, 2007
2007 Ct. Sup. 6064 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)
Case details for

Wardlaw v. City of New Haven

Case Details

Full title:Douglas Wardlaw v. City of New Haven

Court:Connecticut Superior Court at New Haven

Date published: Mar 14, 2007

Citations

2007 Ct. Sup. 6064 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)
43 CLR 1