875 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1989), 88-2795, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wright

Docket Nº:88-2795.
Citation:875 F.2d 871
Party Name:STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:May 24, 1989
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 871

875 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1989)

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

David WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-2795.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 24, 1989

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted May 10, 1989.

N.D.Cal.

AFFIRMED.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. John P. Vukasin, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.

Before HUG, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

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 § 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,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP