Stearns v. Dairyland Insurance
Docket: No. 88-477
Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; March 15, 1990; Vermont; State Supreme Court
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff, who sought damages for her husband's death in an automobile accident involving a vehicle operated by a fifteen-year-old student. The student had recently exchanged a Volkswagen for a Pontiac Grand Am, which he was driving at the time of the accident. Although the student received the vehicle's Certificate of Title and executed a bill of sale, he did not have insurance coverage as he was not insured under any policy. His mother’s insurance policy excluded liability coverage for vehicles owned by family members unless they were specifically covered under the policy. The key legal question was whether the student owned the Pontiac at the time of the accident, as defined by the insurance policy's exclusion. The plaintiff argued that the ownership transfer was ineffective under the Uniform Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act because the student had not applied for a title or paid required fees. However, the court determined that the previous owner had satisfied the necessary legal requirements for the transfer of ownership by executing the assignment and delivering the certificate to the student. The statute did not require the student to apply for a title immediately upon transfer, and his intention to repair the vehicle before driving it further supported the conclusion that the transfer was valid. Thus, the court ruled that the student was deemed to be the owner of the Pontiac under the insurance policy's exclusion at the time of the accident. Plaintiff references various cases from different jurisdictions demonstrating that non-compliance with title transfer statutes prevents ownership transfer. In those cases, defects included improperly completed, assigned, or submitted certificates to the relevant authorities. Notably, Vermont's "Uniform Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act" diverges from the Uniform Act, particularly regarding the transfer of interest. The Uniform Act mandates that the transferee must complete and submit a new title application promptly, a requirement absent in Vermont law. Consequently, this absence negates any obligation to pay associated fees. Despite this, all other requirements were satisfied: the transferor provided the title certificate and executed the assignment to the student. Therefore, the transfer was deemed effective, establishing the student as the rightful owner of the Pontiac. The court affirmed this, noting that the defendant's policy exclusion precluded coverage. The relevant section not adopted by Vermont law stipulates that the transferee must execute an application for a new title promptly after receiving the vehicle.