Darrah v. California State Auto. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 21 February 1968 |
| Citation | 66 Cal.Rptr. 374,259 Cal.App.2d 243 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Malcolm DARRAH and John L. Wheatley, Cross-Complainants and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Inter-Insurance Bureau, a California Reciprocal Inter-Insurance Exchange, and Allstate Insurance Company, a corporation, Cross-Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 23718. |
Emmons, Williams, Mires & Leech, San Francisco, for appellants.
Marquart & Jackson, Oakland, Robert W. Yank, Hayward, for respondents (California State Automobile Ass'n, Inter-Insurance Bureau).
Hagar, Crosby & Rosson, Justin M. Roach, Jr., Burton Mason, Oakland, for respondents (Allstate Ins. Co.).
This appeal concerns the uninsured motorist provisions of Insurance Code section 11580.2.
The car of an admittedly negligent uninsured motorist collided with an automobile owned and driven by George Rehm. Appellants and cross-complainants John L. Wheatley and Malcolm Darrah were passengers in the Rehm automobile. Rehm died and Darrah and Wheatley suffered serious bodily injuries as a proximate result of the accident. Rehm's wife survived him.
Cross-defendant and respondent Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Allstate) had in force a policy of automobile insurance issued to Rehm. The policy provided uninsured motorist coverage to Rehm and other persons occupying his vehicle, with liability limits of $10,000 as to any one claimant and $20,000 as to any one accident. Wheatley and Darrah were also automobile owners. At the time of the accident each had in force a policy of automobile insurance with the same uninsured motorist provisions and liability limits as the policy of Rehm. Wheatley's policy of automobile written by Allstate, while Darrah's was written by cross-defendant and respondent California State Automobile Association, Inter-Insurance Bureau (hereinafter referred to as CSAA).
Rehm's widow, Wheatley and Darrah made claims for damages pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of the Rehm policy. Together these claims were for damages reasonably in excess of the $20,000 limits of the policy, and separately, each exceeded $10,000.
In an interpleader action commenced by Allstate, Wheatley and Darrah cross-complained for declaratory relief against All-state and CSAA. They sought an adjudication that Allstate and CSAA were liable respectively under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Wheatley and Darrah policies for 'the full amount of * * * damages up to the difference between what (was) received under the Rehm policy' and their own policy limits. The trial court, holding that there was no such liability, granted judgment on the pleadings against Darrah, and entered judgment against Wheatley upon his failure to amend after a successful demurrer to his complaint. These judgments are the subject of the instant appeals.
Wheatley and Darrah contend that they are entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of their own insurance policies, at least to the extent that each policy's $10,000 coverage exceeds the amounts received by each of them under the Rehm policy. 1
Insurance Code section 11580.2, among other things, provides: * * *'
Following closely the language of section 11580.2 the Wheatley and Darrah policies provided with regard to their 'uninsured motorist' provisions: '* * * With respect to bodily injury sustained by any insured occupying any automobile, other than one owned by the named insured, the insurance hereunder shall not apply if the owner of such automobile has insurance similar to that provided for herein.'
It is well established that the rights of Wheatley and Darrah are to determined by the terms of their policies provided they grant benefits at least equal to those required by the terms of section 11580.2. (Grunfeld v. Pacific Auto Ins. Co., 232 Cal.App.2d 4, 6, 42 Cal.Rptr. 516.) No contention is made that the policies do not comply with the Insurance Code section. Furthermore, there can be no doubt of the right of the insurance companies to limit, in accordance with section 11580.2, the coverage of their policies, and when they have done so the plain language of the limitations must be respected. (Continental Cas. Co. v. Phoenix Constr. Co., 46 Cal.2d 423, 432, 296 P.2d 801, 57 A.L.R.2d 914; Hendricks v. Meritplan Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.2d 133, 137, 22 Cal.Rptr. 682.) And when the terms of an insurance policy are plain and explicit, the court will indulge in no forced construction so as to cast unassumed liability on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Phillips
...Insurance Company, 66 Wash.2d 871, 405 P.2d 712 (Sup.Ct.1965), there is no mention of any statute; Darrah v. California State Auto Assoc., 259 Cal.App.2d 243, 66 Cal.Rptr. 374 (1968) and Shoffner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 494 S.W.2d 756 (Tenn.Sup.Ct.1972) were controlled by ......
-
Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exchange
...652, 655-656, 172 Cal.Rptr. 263 [construction of Ins.Code, § 11580.2, subd. (h)(1) ]; Darrah v. California State Automobile Assn. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 243, 245, 247, 66 Cal.Rptr. 374 [construction of Ins.Code § 11580.2, subd. (c)(2) ] ). In this context, the rule makes sense, since it is t......
-
Sloviaczek v. Estate of Puckett
...Wis.2d 558, 217 N.W.2d 670 (1974); Ray v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 498 F.2d 220 (6th Cir. 1974); Darrah v. Cal. State Auto. Assoc., 259 Cal.App.2d 243, 66 Cal.Rptr. 374 (1968). We cannot be persuaded to adopt the "Lamb-Weston" rule based upon a predominance of authority, because ther......
-
Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Wolf
...insurance so as to deprive an injured insured of higher limits under his or her own UMC.31 Of these older decisions, the trilogy of Kirby, Darrah, and Alcivar is the most significant for our In Kirby, the appellate court quoted approvingly the following remarks of the trial judge: "`The int......