## Facts

- Automaster Motor Co. (Automaster), a vehicle dealer insured by Acadia Insurance Company (Acadia), obtained a Honda from a private owner and agreed to sell it to Carey’s Auto Sales (Carey’s), a dealer insured by Concord General Mutual Insurance Company (Concord).
- A Carey’s employee went to Automaster to pick up the Honda, delivered Carey’s check as payment, placed Carey’s dealer plates on the vehicle, and drove it off Automaster’s lot toward Carey’s premises.
- At the time the Carey’s employee took possession, Automaster apparently had the certificate of title, but it did not assign the certificate to Carey’s until several days later (consistent with the parties’ understanding that the paperwork would be completed within a few days).
- While driving the Honda from Automaster to Carey’s, the Carey’s employee was injured in a crash.
- The resulting dispute was between the two insurers about which dealer owned the Honda at the time of the crash and, therefore, which insurer was responsible for coverage. (Named defendant Floyd Sumner played no role in the appeal.)
- The trial court determined that Carey’s owned the Honda at the time of the accident and that Concord’s policy provided coverage; Concord appealed.

## Issues

1. In a dealer-to-dealer vehicle sale, does the Vermont Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act make ownership (for insurance coverage) turn on assignment or filing of the title certificate, so that ownership remains with the selling dealer until paperwork is completed?
2. If the title-certificate statute does not resolve the ownership question, may the court look beyond the statute to the parties’ transaction (including payment and delivery/possession, and UCC concepts) to decide which dealer owned the vehicle at the time of the accident?

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court upheld the determination that Carey’s owned the Honda when the accident occurred and, as a result, Concord was obligated to cover the damages arising from the Carey’s employee’s injuries.
- The Court rejected Concord’s argument that the Certificate of Title Act necessarily controlled the ownership question in this insurance dispute.
- Relying on prior Vermont decisions, the Court treated technical title-certificate timing as not dispositive and looked beyond the title statute in resolving ownership between dealers.

## Legal Principles

- The Vermont Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act does not supply the exclusive answer to every vehicle-ownership question raised in insurance coverage litigation.
- The Title Act’s primary aims are to deter theft and protect secured creditors, not to decide which insurer must pay in a liability-coverage dispute when a vehicle has been paid for and delivered but paperwork follows later.
- Technical noncompliance with, or delay in completing, title-certificate steps does not automatically keep ownership in the seller for coverage purposes after the buyer has paid and taken possession.
- When the title-certificate statute does not decide the question, Vermont courts may look beyond it—consistent with prior cases such as *Stearns v. Dairyland Insurance Co.* and *Winn v. Becker*—to determine ownership based on the transaction and the parties’ actions (including payment and delivery/possession) in the dealer context.

## Conclusion

Because Carey’s paid for the Honda and took possession when its employee drove the vehicle off Automaster’s lot, and because the Title Act did not make delayed title-certificate transfer determinative in this dealer-to-dealer insurance dispute, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that Carey’s was the owner at the time of the crash and Concord owed coverage.


Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sumner, 171 Vt. 572, 762 A.2d 849 (2000)