Arguello v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 78-814

Docket NºNo. 78-814
Citation42 Colo.App. 372, 599 P.2d 266
Case DateApril 19, 1979
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Page 266

599 P.2d 266
42 Colo.App. 372
Alex ARGUELLO and Gloria M. Arguello, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 78-814.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.
April 19, 1979.
Rehearing Denied May 10, 1979.
Certiorari Denied Aug. 20, 1979.

[42 Colo.App. 373]

Page 267

Lee N. Sternal, Pueblo, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Laurence A. Ardell, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee.

ENOCH, Judge.

Relying upon the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy issued by defendant, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, plaintiffs, the Arguellos, sought additional recovery for injuries sustained in an accident. They appeal from the trial court judgment in favor of defendant. We affirm.

Plaintiffs owned two automobiles, a Toyota and an Oldsmobile, each of which was insured under a separate policy with State Farm. Each policy provided for "uninsured motorist" coverage in the amount of $15,000. On July 1, 1973, while plaintiffs were riding in their Toyota, they were involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist which caused injuries to Alex Arguello. It was stipulated that his damages exceeded $30,000. Pursuant to the uninsured motorist coverage of the Toyota policy, State Farm paid $15,000 to Alex Arguello for his injuries. When he attempted to recover an additional amount under the Oldsmobile uninsured motorist provision, however, State Farm resisted the "stacking." In addition, State Farm refused to compensate Gloria Arguello on her claim for damages resulting from loss of consortium. The trial court held for State Farm on both issues.

Plaintiffs first contend that because they paid two separate premiums for uninsured

Page 268

motorist coverage, Alex Arguello should be compensated by [42 Colo.App. 374] State Farm under both policies so that he will receive $30,000 for the injuries he sustained. We disagree.

The "uninsured motor vehicle coverage" provision of each of the policies provides, in pertinent part, that the insurer will pay all sums an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, with the exception that the insurance does not apply "(t)o Bodily injury to an Insured while occupying . . . a motor vehicle owned by the named insured . . . if such vehicle is not an Owned motor vehicle." Each of the emphasized words in the provision is identified as having a particular technical meaning defined within the terms of the policy.

Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Shepherd v. Fregozo
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • June 13, 2005
    ...("owned but not insured" exclusion is not contrary to public policy); Arguello v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra [42 Colo.App. 372, 599 P.2d 266 (1979)] However, in DeHerrera, the supreme court indicated its disapproval of Williams-Diehl and implicitly disapproved of Argu......
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hampton, s. 90-1523
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 31, 1991
    ...1101 (1980); Herrick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 202 Neb. 116, 274 N.W.2d 147 (1979); Arguello v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 42 Colo.App. 372, 599 P.2d 266 (1979); Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Baker, 119 R.I. 734, 383 A.2d 1005 (1978); Hill v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 535 S.W.2d 327......
  • Valliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 14
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1990
    ...Auto. Ass'n v. Warner, 64 Cal.App.3d 957, 964-965, 135 Cal.Rptr. 34, 38 (4th Dist.1976); Arguello v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 42 Colo.App. 372, 375, 599 P.2d 266, 268-269 (1979); Izzo v. Colonial Penn. Ins. Co., 203 Conn. 305, 313, 524 A.2d 641, 645 (1987); Cross v. Country Cos., 1......
  • Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 8, 1985
    ...when the purpose meant to be served by the exclusion is clearly inapplicable. But see, e.g., Arguello v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 42 Colo.App. 372, 599 P.2d 266 (1979). The court in Arguello relied on legislative policy similar to that outlined in Blakely which, as we have held above......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT