Edward S.E. Kim

The appellant was injured as a passenger in a vehicle owned by his spouse and driven by an uninsured driver without the spouse's consent.

The vehicle was insured by Jevco.

The appellant claimed coverage under uninsured automobile coverage, but Jevco denied the claim on the basis that the vehicle was not an "uninsured automobile" because it was owned by the insured's spouse.

The motion judge agreed with Jevco and dismissed the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the statutory and contractual definitions of "uninsured automobile" unambiguously exclude vehicles owned by the insured or their spouse, regardless of whether the vehicle was taken without consent.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

The plaintiff was injured while a passenger in his spouse's vehicle, which was allegedly taken without consent by the uninsured driver.

The insurer argued that coverage was precluded because the vehicle was owned by the plaintiff's spouse.

The court found the statutory and contractual definitions of 'uninsured automobile' to be ambiguous in these circumstances.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court construed the ambiguity against the insurer and dismissed the motion for summary judgment.