State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 88-2795
Citation | 875 F.2d 871 |
Decision Date | 24 May 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-2795,88-2795 |
Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Before HUG, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
David Wright appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") on the issue of the company's liability to Wright under an auto insurance policy issued to him. Wright alleges that the policy's uninsured motorist section covers injuries he sustained when beaten and robbed at gunpoint after being stopped in his car. We affirm.
Under California law, any uninsured motorist claim for damages involving an unknown owner or driver must offer as a prerequisite to recovery proof that the injury suffered arose out of physical contact between the insured and the uninsured's car. Cal.Ins.Code Sec. 11580.2(b) (West 1988). See Orpustan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 Cal.Rptr. 919, 922-233 (Cal.1972); see also Barnes v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 230 Cal.Rptr. 800, 801 (Cal.Ct.App.1986); Boyd v. Inter-Insurance Exch., 186 Cal.Rptr. 443, 444-46 (Cal.Ct.App.1982).
Wright has not satisfied this well-established principle of California law. He concedes that at no time did the assailants' car come into physical contact with him or his truck. His claim, consequently, fails.
Wright's argument that two California appellate cases have modified the physical contact standard is unpersuasive. The first case, Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Munoz, 245 Cal.Rptr. 324 (Cal.Ct.App.1988), was withdrawn from circulation by the California Supreme Court and therefore may not be cited or otherwise relied upon. Cal.R.Court Rules 976(c)(2), 977(a) (West 1988). The second case, Inter-Insurance Exch. v. Lopez, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834 (Cal.Ct.App.1965), is inapplicable. In Lopez, the California Supreme Court held that an unknown vehicle which strikes a second vehicle that, in turn, strikes the insured vehicle satisfies the physical contact requirement. Id. at 836-37. In Wright's case, neither the uninsured car nor a car struck by it came into...
To continue reading
Request your trial