MT WEST FARM BUR v NEAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13047 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 197 5 MOUNTAIN WEST F R BUREAU, e t a1.y AM P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , ROBERT L. NEAL, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e E s t a t e of DEBORAH NEAL, Deceased, and ROBERT C. DRIGGS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: Scanlon and Connors, Anaconda, Montana Joseph C. Connors argued, Anaconda, Montana Radonich, B r o l i n and Reardon, Anaconda, Montana - p ~ / 0/&~7e& For R e q m d m t s : L.L & Johnson and F o s t e r , Lewistown, Montana Robert L. Johnson argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: Filed : December 17, 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) brought a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendants Neal and Driggs seeking a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t Farm Bureau i s l i a b l e t o pay no more than $10,000 t o i t s i n s u r e d , Neal, under i t s It uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage. Neal counter- claimed t h a t Farm Bureau i s l i a b l e i n t h e amount o f $80,000. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, found Farm ~ u r e a u ' s l i a b i l i t y t o be $40,000. Farm Bureau and Neal a p p e a l from t h i s order. The u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e i s whether and under what circums t a n c e s a person c a r r y i n g a s i n g l e p o l i c y of automobile l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e , which i n s u r e s two o r more v e h i c l e s and i n c l u d e s a p r o v i s i o n f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, may "stack" o r II pyramid" t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t under t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n q u e s t i o n t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s may be s t a c k e d on t h e b a s i s of t h e number o f v e h i c l e s i n s u r e d , b u t t h a t t h o s e l i m i t s may n o t be stacked on both t h e wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v a l claims. W affirm. e The f a c t s of t h i s c a s e were s t i p u l a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and a r e undisputed h e r e . P r i o r t o J u l y 4 , 1971, Farm Bureau i s s u e d i t s p o l i c y of automobile l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e t o Neal, t h e p o l i c y included a p r o v i s i o n f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage i n t h e amount of $10,000 f o r one person i n any one a c c i d e n t . Four motor v e h i c l e s , a l l owned by Neal, were covered by t h e same p o l i c y . Neal, h i s w i f e , and h i s daughter Deborah were named i n s u r e d s by d e f i n i t i o n under t h e p o l i c y , which was i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t on J u l y 4 , 1971. O J u l y b , 1971, Deborah Neal was r i d i n g on a motorcycle n owned and operated by Robert Driggs, t h e o t h e r defendant h e r e i n . A a c c i d e n t occurred i n which Deborah was i n j u r e d ; she d i e d on n J u l y 10, 1971. Driggs was an uninsured m o t o r i s t a t t h e time of t h e accident. Neal brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t Driggs and Farm Bureau i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G a l l a t i n County seeking damages from Driggs f o r ~ e b o r a h ' si n j u r y and d e a t h , and reimbursement from Farm Bureau under t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t p r o v i s i o n s of i t s p o l i c y w i t h Neal. T h e r e a f t e r , on February 6 , 1974, Farm Bureau f i l e d i t s complaint f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n Lewis and Clark County a g a i n s t Neal and Driggs. The G a l l a t i n County a c t i o n between Neal and Driggs i s pending, Farm Bureau having been dropped a s a p a r t y thereto. Farm Bureau a l l e g e d i n i t s complaint t h a t i t had tendered $10,000 t o Neal t o s a t i s f y i t s o b l i g a t i o n under t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t p r o v i s i o n s of i t s p o l i c y ; t h a t s a i d t e n d e r had been r e p e a t e d l y r e f u s e d ; and t h a t Neal b e l i e v e d he was e n t i t l e d t o m u l t i p l y t h e $10,000 l i m i t f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage by t h e number of automobiles Neal had i n s u r e d under t h e same p o l i c y . Farm Bureau prayed f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i t was under no duty o r o b l i g a t i o n t o pay more than $10,000 t o Neal f o r i n j u r i e s t o and d e a t h of Deborah Neal under t h e terms of t h e p o l i c y . Defendant Neal answered by a d m i t t i n g a l l o f Farm Bureau's a l l e g a t i o n s save t h o s e which would l i m i t Farm Bureau's l i a b i l i t y t o $10,000 o r t o $40,000. Neal counterclaimed f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t Farm Bureau's maximum o b l i g a t i o n under t h e p o l i c y i s $80,000 ---$40,000 f o r t h e damages t o t h e h e i r s f o r t h e wrongful d e a t h of Deborah Neal, and $40,000 f o r t h e bodily i n j u r i e s and p e r s o n a l s u f f e r i n g of Deborah Neal under h e r s u r v i v a l claim. Thus Neal sought t o "stack" uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s i n two ways, v i z . (1) by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e $10,000 l i m i t by t h e number of i n s u r e d v e h i c l e s ( f o u r ) , and (2) by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e $40,000 l i a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g thereby by t h e number o f c l a i m s prosecuted by Neal a s an i n s u r e d i n d i v i d u a l and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e h e i r s of Deborah Neal, and a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Deborah Ileal' s e s t a t e , (two). The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lewis and Clark County had b e f o r e i t t h e s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s and a copy of t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d by Farm Bureau t o Neal. Following h e a r i n g and submission of b r i e f s , t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t Farm ~ u r e a u ' smaximum t o t a l o b l i g a t i o n t o Neal under i t s p o l i c y f o r a l l i n j u r i e s t o and t h e d e a t h of Deborah Neal i s t h e sum o f $40,000. Farm Bureau a p p e a l s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r which permits s t a c k i n g t h e $10,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t on t h e t h e o r y t h a t f o u r v e h i c l e s were i n s u r e d by one p o l i c y ; Neal a p p e a l s from t h e p o r t i o n of t h e o r d e r which d e n i e s h i s a t t e m p t t o s t a c k t h e two claims a s an i n s u r e d i n d i v i d u a l and a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Deborah ~ e a l ' s estate. The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : (1) D t h e insurance policy provisions r e l a t i n g t o o uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage c o n t a i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s which r e n d e r t h e p o l i c y ambiguous, t h u s p e r m i t t i n g a j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e p o l i c y which allows s t a c k i n g based on t h e number of v e h i c l e s insured? (2) Can t h e i n s u r a n c e claimant Neal s t a c k uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s on t h e b a s i s of h i s c a p a c i t y t o sue on two c l a i m s , i . e . , a s an i n s u r e d i n d i v i d u a l and a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Deborah ~ e a l ' s s t a t e ? e I n i t s o r d e r and opinion d a t e d March 1 2 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t disposed of t h e f i r s t i s s u e i n t h i s language: "1t i s t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Court t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p o l i c y d e a l i n g w i t h and l a b e l l e d ' ~ i m i t sof ~ i a b i l i t y ' (pg.32) and t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s of paragraph '1' o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s s e c t i o n of t h e p o l i c y (pg.37) a r e c o n t r a d i c t o r y , ambiguous and beyond r e c o n c i l i a t i o n and must t h e r e f o r e be construed i n f a v o r of t h e p o l i c y h o l d e r . When s o c o n s t r u e d , t h e e f f e c t of paragraph '1' - a f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s i s t o provide f o u r s e p a r a t e p o l i c i e s of uninsured m o t o r i s t i n s u r a n c e w i t h maxlmum l i a b i l i t y of $10,000 each f o r each person physically injured o r k i l l e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r occurrence, t h e r e having been f o u r v e h i c l e s i n s u r e d under t h e p o l i c y a t t h e time of t h e i n j u r y . JC JC JX" (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n r e f e r r e d t o s t a t e s i.n p a r t : " ( a ) 'The l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y , a s s t a t e d i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, a s a p p l i c a b l e t o ' each person' i s t h e l i m i t of t h e company's l i a b i l i t y f o r a l l damages, i n c l u d i n g damages f o r c a r e o r l o s s of s e r v i c e s , because of b o d i l y i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by one person a s t h e r e s u l t of any one a c c i d e n t and, s u b j e c t t o t h e above prov i s i o n r e s p e c t i n g each person, t h e l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y s t a t e d i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s a s a p p l i c a b l e t o 'each a c c i d e n t ' i s t h e t o t a l l i m i t o f t h e Company's l i a b i l i t y f o r a l l damages, i n c l u d i n g damages f o r c a r e o r l o s s of s e r v i c e s , because of b o d i l y i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by two o r more persons a s a r e s u l t o f any one a c c i d e n t . I I L~aragraph I ' 1I t of t h e d e f i n i t i o n s s e c t i o n provides i n oertinent part: I' (1) Two (2) o r more automobiles--- Fhen two (2) o r more automobiles a r e i n s u r e d hereunder, t h e terms of Section 1 1 s h a l l apply s e p a r a t e l y t o 1 each JX it J;." This p r o v i s i o n i s r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e . The r u l e of c o n s t r u c t i o n of i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s i n Montana < " i s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 40-3725, R.C.M. a 1947: 1' Construction of p o l i c i e s . Every i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t s h a l l be construed according, t o t h e e n t i r e t v of i t s terms and c o n d i t i o n s a s s e t - f o r t h i n t h e and a s a m p l i f i e d , extended, o r modified by any r i d e r , endorsement, o r a p p l i c a t i o n which i s a p a r t of t h e p o l i c y . 11 It i s a l s o t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t where an ambiguity i n an insurance p o l i c y e x i s t s a f t e r viewing i t i n i t s e n t i r e t y , t h e terms t h e r e o f w i l l be construed l i b e r a l l y i n f a v o r of t h e insured and s t r i c t l y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r . I n Atcheson v. Safeco Insurance Company, 165 Mont. 239, 527 P.2d 549, 31 St.Rep. 839,846, it i s said: * "When an ambiguity a r i s e s ik J; t h e i n s u r e d i s ent i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t of any doubt. I I Lamb v . "age, 153 Mor~t. 171, 455 P . 2 d 337; St. Paul See also: Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 150 Mont. 182, 433 P. 2d 795; Johnson v. Equitable Ins. Co., 142 Mont. 128, 381 P.2d 778; Eby v. Foremost Insurance Co., 141 Mont. 62, 374 P.2d 857. Cf. Stonewall I n s . Co. v. West, 163 Mont. 12, 514 P.2d 764; Jones v. Virginia Surety Co., 145 Mont. 440, 401 P.2d 570; Section 13-720, R.C.M. 1947. Viewing the limits of liability clause and separability clause in juxtaposition and as part of the entire policy leads to the conclusion that they are beyond reconciliation.1 1 II contradictory, ambiguous and The separability clause is expressly made part of the uninsured motorist coverage. The limits of liability clause limits coverage for "each person" in any one On the other hand, under the separability clause accident to $10,000. each separate automobile is governed by the limits of liability clause of the policy. Thus, under the former clause Neal would recover no more than $10,000; under the latter he could recover up co $40,000. Applying the rules of construction of insurance policies hereinabove stated, we hold the district court was correct in construing the ambiguous provisions in favor of the insured, Neal, and stacking uninsured motorist coverage limits to a maximum of $40,000. Further clarification of this holding can be found in uninsured motorist cases from Montana and other jurisdictions. Farm Bureau and Neal strongly contested the application to the instant case of Sullivan v. Doe, 159 Mont. 50,59,60,62, 495 P.2d 1 9 3 , the only other reported Montana case dealing with uninsured motorist coverage. The pertinent issue in Sullivan as stated by the Court was: 'I* * * whether it is permissible for an insurance company in Montana to place limitations in its t uninsured motorist1 coverage which reduce or eliminate its liability below the statutory limits." This Court unanimously h e l d where t h e r e were two i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s on one i n d i v i d u a l , both of which contained uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, n e i t h e r i n s u r e r could l i m i t i t s l i a b i l i t y below t h e $10,000 s t a t u t o r y l i m i t by deducting workman's compensation o r "other insurance" b e n e f i t payments by v i r t u e o f certain policty clauses. These c l a u s e s , a s a p p l i e d by t h e i n s u r - ance companies, were i n d e r o g a t i o n of t h e l e t t e r and s p i r i t of Montana's uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M. 1947, and were d e c l a r e d void. I n S u l l i v a n we were d e a l i n g w i t h two i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s and w i t h a "primary" and "excess1' i n s u r e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , S u l l i v a n a i d s our t a s k h e r e by d e c l a r i n g : "* * Jc The b a s i c purpose of t h i s [uninsured m o t o r i s t ] s t a t u t e i s obvious---to provide p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e automobile i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y h o l d e r a g a i n s t t h e r i s k of inadequate compensation f o r i n j u r i e s o r d e a t h caused by t h e n e g l i g e n c e of f i n a n c i a l l y i r r e s p o n s i b l e motorists. * i s simply t o p l a c e t IThe l e g i s l a t i v e purpose * t h e i n j u r e d p o l i c y h o l d e r i n t h e same p o s i t i o n he would have been i f t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t had l i a b i l i t y i n '1 surance * * *. In d i s c u s s i n g t h e 11 excess" i n s u r e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t s "other insurance" c l a u s e r e l i e v e d i t of any l i a b i l i t y , we s t a t e d : ** I 119c t h e s t a t u t o r y requirement o f $10,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t ' coverage p r e s c r i b e s a minimum amount only and does n o t p u r p o r t t o f i x a s t a t u t o r y maximum. l I The l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s enunciated i n S u l l i v a n apply w i t h e q u a l f o r c e h e r e . T h e r e f o r e , where an i n s u r e r does n o t v a l i d l y l i m i t i t s l i a b i l i t y t o t h e s t a t u t o r y minimum, che uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s can b e stacked t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e purpose of t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e . That purpose i s i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i n s u r e d up t o t h e l i m i t of t h e i n s u r e r ' s L i a b i l i t y , a s s t a c k e d , o r t h e t o t a l damages s u f f e r e d by t h e insured--whichever i s l e s s . Both p a r t i e s i n t h i s appeal c i t e d c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n support of t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a c k i n g of uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s based on number of v e h i c l e s insured. Without e x t e n s i v e l y reviewing t h o s e c o n f l i c t i n g c a s e s i n t h i s opinion, we f i n d ~ e a l ' sa u t h o r i t i e s more p e r s u a s i v e . I n i t s o r d e r and opinion, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x p r e s s l y r e l i e d on t h e Indiana c a s e of J e f f r i e s v. Stewart, (1nd.App. 309 N.E.2d 448. In J e f f r i e s 1974), t h e c o u r t found an ambiguity c r e a t e d by a l i m i t s o f l i a b i l i t y c l a u s e and s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e almost i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and construed t h e p o l i c y i n f a v o r of s t a c k i n g coverage l i m i t s . Subsequently i n M i l l e r v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 506 F.2d 11,15, t h e Court of Appeals a p p l i e d Indiana law t o an uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage s t a c k i n g s i t u a t i o n , a f f i r m e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court and h e l d t h a t s t a c k i n g was n o t p e r m i s s i b l e . However, i t r e c o n c i l e d t h i s holding w i t h J e f f r i e s by s t a t i n g : ** Resolving t h e ambiguity i n f a v o r of t h e insured, i t [the J e f f r i e s court1 held t h a t t h e i n s u r e d was e n t i t l e d t o a g g r e g a t e t h e l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s . I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , however, t h e r e was no s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e a f f e c t i n g t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage and no ambiguity i n t h e p o l i c y coverage, and t h e c a s e l o g i c a l l y may b e d i s t i n guished. f: ik -'-I1 If* 48 I t i s w i t h t h e reasoning o f t h i s statement from Miller t h a t we d i s t i n g u i s h Westchester F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company v. Tucker, (Tex.1974), 512 S.W.2d 679, r e l i e d on by Farm Bureau. Cf. T a l b o t v, S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s . Co. (Miss.1974), 291 So.2d 699, (no r e f e r e n c e t o s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e ) . Other c a s e s c i t e d by Farm Bureau e i t h e r d e a l w i t h g e n e r a l l i a b i l i t y coverage r a t h e r than uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, P a c i f i c Indemnity Company v. Thompson, 56 Wash.2d 715, 355 P.2d 12; o r f a i l t o make any d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two t y p e s of coverage, C a s t l e v. United P a c i f i c Insurance Group, 252 O r . 44, 448 P.2d 357; Kennedy v. American Hardware Mutual I n s . Co., 255 O r . 425, 467 P.2d 963; A l l s t a t e Insurance Company v. Schmitka, 21 Cal.App.3d 59, 90 Cal.Rptr. F i d e l i t y and Guaranty Co., 399; Arminski v. United S t a t e s 23 Mich.App. v. A l l s t a t e Insurance Company, 2 352, 178 N.W.2d 497; O t t o I11.App.3d 58, 275 N.E.2d 766; A l l s t a t e Insurance Company v. IlcHugh, 124 N,J.Super. 105, 304 A,2d 777; Hurles v. Republic F r a n k l i n I n s . Co., 39 Ohio App,2d 118, 316 N.E.2d 494. I n o r d e r t o promote t h e a d j u d i c a t e d purpose of our uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e , we d e c l i n e t o follow t h e s e c a s e s . Farm Bureau u r g e s one more p o i n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , namely, t h a t t h e II d u p l i c a t e coverage" c l a u s e of t h e p o l i c y e n t i t l e d t h e i n s u r e d t o only one s e t of uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s . However, we a g r e e w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , which s t a t e d i n i t s o r d e r and opinion: ** The ' d u p l i c a t e coverage' p r o v i s i o n 9 : d e a l s w i t h d u p l i c a t e coverage w i t h i n a s i n g l e p o l i c y , n o t s i m i l a r coverage i n m u l t i p l e p o l i c i e s . I f i t was intended t o l i m i t t h e s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d and accepted uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage w i t h i n any of t h e s e p a r a t e p o l i c i e s , i t i s i n v a l i d . II It Cf. S u l l i v a n v , Doe, 159 Mont. 50, 495 P.2d 193. O c r o s s - a p p e a l Neal maintains t h e $40.000 l i a b i l i t y o f n . ' , Farm Bureau should b e doubled because t h e r e a r e two c l a i m s i n t h e main t o r t a c t i o n - - s u r v i v a l and wrongful d e a t h . I n e f f e c t , Neal claims coverage a s (1) t h e l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Deborah N e a l ' s e s t a t e f o r h e r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s and d e a t h , and (2) an i n s u r e d . i n d i v i d u a 1 under t h e p o l i c y and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Deborah ~ e a l ' s e i r s , a l s o i n s u r e d s under t h e p o l i c y , h Neal seems t o c l a i m t h a t i n Alternatively, event t h e $20,000 l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y f o r "each a c c i d e n t " s e t f o r t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f l i a b i l i t y c l a u s e and t h e p o l i c y d e c l a r a t i o n s can b e s t a c k e d on t h e f o u r s e p a r a t e p o l i c i e s t o $80,000. The main argument r u n s a f o u l o f t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e p o l i c y d e f i n i t i o n of "Named insuredi' which provides : II The i n s u r a n c e a f f o r d e d under motorist] applies separately t h e i n c l u s i o n h e r e i n of more not operate t o increase the l liability. " Coverage P [uninsured t o each i n s u r e d , b u t than one i n s u r e d s h a l l i m i t s of t h e Company's Accordingly ~ e a l ' sc l a i m o f $80,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage must f a i l . N e a l ' s a l t e r n a t i v e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e "each a c c i d e n t " l i m i t of $20,000 can be s t a c k e d i s without m e r i t . The l i m i t s of liability clause, heretofore set forth, subordinates the "each accident1'provision to the It each person" provision. The district court was correct in denying this claim. The order of the district court is affirmed. Justice We Concur: n Chief'Justice James T. Harrison and Justice Wesley Castles dissenting: We dissent. We do not agree that there is any ambiguity in the liability and separability clauses and thus would not construe anything. However, we do agree with the majority's discussion of the cross-appeal. i". ' "Justice. .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.