Summary
invalidating an exclusionary clause in a UM policy on grounds that the clause violated HRS § 431-448 by denying liability to an insured under the policy on the basis that at the time of the injury, the insured was not occupying an "owned motor vehicle" as defined in the policy
Summary of this case from Liberty Mutu. Ins. Co. v. Sentinel Ins. Co.Opinion
NO. 5829
May 19, 1977
APPEAL FROM FIRST CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE NORITO KAWAKAMI, JUDGE.
RICHARDSON, C.J., OGATA, MENOR AND KIDWELL, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE LUM IN PLACE OF KOBAYASHI, J., DISQUALIFIED.
James Kawashima (Kobayashi, Koshiba, Watanabe, of counsel) for defendant-appellant.
Steven H. Levinson (Schutter Levinson, of counsel) for plaintiff-appellee.
Had the plaintiff-appellee been a passenger in an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle owned by a party not a member of the Kau household, she would have been covered by her father's uninsured motorist policy. See Palisbo v. Hawaiian Ins. and Guaranty Co., supra. Or had she been driving an automobile not owned by a member of the Kau household, she would still have been covered by her father's policy. See State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Reaves, supra. It would be anomalous, and certainly inconsistent with the legislative intent, to hold that in those situations the statute would allow recovery but in the present situation it would not.