Baehmer v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wisconsin

• Decision Date: 22 April 1992
• Docket Number: No. 14063-2-II,14063-2-II
• Citation: 65 Wn.App. 301,827 P.2d 1113
• Parties: Al P. BAEHMER, Appellant, v. VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 301

65 Wn.App. 301

827 P.2d 1113

Al P. BAEHMER, Appellant, v. VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, Respondent.

No. 14063-2-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 2.

April 22, 1992.

Douglas K. Smith, Albertson Smith & Associates, Tacoma, for appellant.

William W. Spencer, Ronald L. Unger, Murray Dunham & Murray, Seattle, for respondent.

ALEXANDER, Judge.

In this declaratory judgment action Al P. Baehmer appeals an order of the Pierce County Superior Court granting summary judgment to the Viking Insurance Company. He contends that the trial court erred in holding that a provision in an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Viking, limiting that company's liability to $25,000 for "each person" and $50,000 for "each occurrence," was not ambiguous, and concluding, therefore, that the lower "each person" limit applied to Baehmer's claim. We affirm.

On August 26, 1988, Baehmer was driving his car northbound on "C" Street in Tacoma in the vicinity of 133rd Street. At the same time, Roberta M. Lee was stopped in her car on "C" Street in the southbound left turn lane at the intersection of 133rd Street. Meanwhile, Onilda Santos-Reyes was driving her car westbound on 133rd Street. The Baehmer and Santos-Reyes vehicles collided causing Baehmer's vehicle to strike Lee's vehicle. As a result, Baehmer suffered personal injuries and sustained damages exceeding $37,500. Lee also suffered personal injuries. She claimed damages of $12,500.

The Santos-Reyes vehicle was insured by the Viking Insurance Company. Baehmer and Lee made claims against Viking for their damages. Viking apparently concedes that it had liability to the limits of the policy.

The declaration page of the Viking policy provided that the limits of liability are "$25,000 each person" and "$50,000 each accident.*" Following the asterisk was this additional language: "Limit of Liability each accident or occurrence as indicated by Insuring Agreement." The insuring agreement stated:

The limits of liability shown on the declarations page are the maximum amounts we'll pay in damages for any one car accident.

The limit for "each person" is the limit for all claims by all persons for damages from bodily injury to one person. The limit for "each occurrence" is the total limit for all claims for damages from bodily injury to two or more people in any one car accident....

(Emphasis in original).

Viking paid Lee $12,500 in full satisfaction of her claim. It also agreed to pay Baehmer $25,000 in full settlement of his claim against Santos-Reyes. Baehmer agreed to accept $25,000, but reserved the right to bring a declaratory judgment action against Viking to determine the limits of its liability under the terms of the Viking policy.

Baehmer then commenced an action in Pierce County Superior Court in which he sought a judgment declaring that the $50,000 "each occurrence" limit applied in this instance, rather than the $25,000 "each person" limit. Baehmer and Viking stipulated to the facts, consistent with what is stated above, and both moved for summary judgment. The superior court granted Viking's motion. Baehmer appeals, arguing that the liability limitation provision on the Viking policy is ambiguous and should be construed so that when two injured persons share the higher limit of liability, either may recover more than $25,000.

An appellate court reviewing an order of the superior court granting summary judgment engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no material factual issues and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Here, there are no material factual issues, the parties having stipulated to the facts. The case was, therefore, ripe for summary judgment.

Baehmer maintains that the policy issued by Viking is ambiguous. Whether an insurance policy contains an ambiguity is properly a question of law to be resolved by the court. R.A. Hanson Co., Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 26 Wash.App. 290, 295, 612 P.2d 456 (1980). "In construing the language of an insurance policy, the entire contract must be construed together so as to give force and effect to each clause." Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Washington Pub. Util. Dist., Util. Sys., 111 Wash.2d 452, 456, 760 P.2d 337 (1988); see also Neer v. Fireman's Fund Amer. Life Ins. Co., 103 Wash.2d 316, 320, 692 P.2d 830 (1985). "A clause in a policy is ambiguous when, on its face, it is fairly susceptible to two different interpretations, both of which are reasonable." Greer v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co., 109 Wash.2d 191, 198, 743 P.2d 1244 (1987) quoting Vadheim v. Continental Ins. Co., 107 Wash.2d 836, 840-41, 734 P.2d 17 (1987); see also Emter v. Columbia Health Servs., 63 Wash.App. 378, 819 P.2d 390 (1991). However, "[i]f the language in an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce it as written and may not modify the contract or create ambiguity where none exists." Transcontinental, 111 Wash.2d at 456, 760 P.2d 337.

In support of his argument that the policy is ambiguous, Baehmer relies on the fact that the $50,000 "each occurrence" limit was not expressly made "subject to" the $25,000 "each person" limit of liability. Because the higher occurrence limit is not "subject to" the lower per person limit, he reasons, the limitation provisions are susceptible to two interpretations and are thus ambiguous. The ambiguity, he argues, should be resolved by adopting the interpretation that is more favorable to the insured. Here, that would mean adopting the interpretation that the $50,000 limit applies whenever two or more people are injured in one accident such that one person may recover more than the $25,000 per person limit. Viking, on the other hand, argues that the policy language clearly discloses that the $25,000 per person limit applies to claims based on injuries to any one person.

Baehmer cites Division One's holding in Haney v. State Farm Insurance, 52 Wash.App. 395, 760 P.2d 950 (1988), as support for his position. In Haney, the court dealt with an insurance policy that had provisions similar to the provisions in the Viking policy. The policy in Haney...