Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that an insurer could not unilaterally determine the value of its insureds’ collision-damage claims under the policy. It concluded that the insureds, and their assignee, could challenge the insurer’s valuation and that the cost of repairing the vehicles to preaccident condition represented covered damage, subject to the policy’s limitation for total losses. The court reversed the judgment as a matter of law, vacated the judgment for the insurer, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict awarding $41,737.89.
Holdings
- The policy did not give Nationwide unilateral discretion to determine the full value of an insured's covered loss or damage.
- The insureds, and Parker's as their post-loss assignee, could challenge Nationwide's valuation of the claims through litigation.
- Under the policy, damage means the amount reasonably necessary to repair the insured vehicle to preaccident condition, subject to the limitation that the amount may not exceed the vehicle's preaccident fair market value.
- A collision-insurance policy covering direct and accidental loss or damage covers labor as a component of the cost of repairing the vehicle to preaccident condition.
- The unpaid amounts that Nationwide owed under the policies could constitute the insureds' financial loss even though the vehicles had been repaired, the insureds had not directly paid Parker's, and Parker's sought collection as assignee.
Questions Presented
- Whether the insurance policy allowed Nationwide to unilaterally determine the amount owed for an insured vehicle's loss or damage.
- Whether the insureds or their post-loss assignee could challenge Nationwide's valuation of the claims through litigation.
- Whether the policy's coverage for direct and accidental loss or damage included the reasonable cost of repairing vehicles to preaccident condition, including labor costs.
- Whether the evidence supported a finding that the insureds suffered a financial loss despite Nationwide's partial payments, the completion of repairs, and Parker's failure to collect the unpaid balances directly from the insureds.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (19)
- Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 122, 730 A.2d 1086, 1090 (1999)(followed)
- In re Ambassador Ins., 2008 VT 105, ¶¶ 12-13, 184 Vt. 408, 965 A.2d 486(followed)
- Co-operative Ins. v. Woodward, 2012 VT 22, ¶ 8, 191 Vt. 348, 45 A.3d 89(followed)
- Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 2003 VT 61, ¶ 11, 175 Vt. 355, 830 A.2d 108(followed)
- Shriner v. Amica Mut. Ins., 2017 VT 23, ¶ 6, 204 Vt. 321, 167 A.3d 326(followed)
- Medlar v. Aetna Ins., 127 Vt. 337, 347, 248 A.2d 340, 347 (1968)(followed)
- Cascade Auto Glass, Inc. v. Idaho Farm Bureau Ins., 115 P.3d 751, 755 (Idaho 2005)(distinguished)
- Gregoire v. Ins. of N. Am., 128 Vt. 255, 259, 261 A.2d 25, 27-28 (1969)(followed)
- Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover Ins., 912 A.2d 513, 518 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)(followed)
- Gaston v. Founders Ins., 847 N.E.2d 523 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…