Interinsurance Exchange v. Marquez
Citation | 172 Cal.Rptr. 263,116 Cal.App.3d 652 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 09 March 1981 |
Parties | INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF the AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. Michael MARQUEZ, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. Civ. 58127. |
Shernoff, Wild, Lipsky & Batchelor, a Partnership of Professional Corporations, William M. Shernoff and Kenneth C. Blickenstaff, Claremont, for defendant, cross-complainant and appellant.
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett and Patrick A. Mesisca, Jr., Los Angeles, for plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent.
This is an appeal by defendant and cross-complainant Marquez from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and cross-defendant Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club of Southern California (hereinafter "Exchange"). Exchange brought its actions for declaratory relief and injunction; Marquez answered and cross-complained as a class action for declaratory relief.
There is no dispute as to the facts and we quote them as presented to us in the briefs:
The issue is one of construction of Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (h)(1). 1
Are the rules of construction those applicable to statutory construction or those applicable to insurance policies? The briefs fairly concede that the determination of which rules apply governs the result. The trial court concluded that statutory rules applied and we agree. Conceding that any ambiguity or uncertainty of an insurance policy will be construed against the insurer which caused the ambiguity, where the language is that of the Legislature, then that rule does not apply. (Darrah v. California State Automobile Assn. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 243, 247, 66 Cal.Rptr. 374.) In interpreting the statute then it must be given a reasonable construction according to the Legislature's real or apparent intention. (Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224.)
The crux of the section, insofar as this case is concerned, is "Any loss payable under the terms of the uninsured motorist endorsement or coverage to or for any person may be reduced: (P) (1) By the amount paid and the present value of all amounts payable to him ... under any workers' compensation law, exclusive of nonoccupational disability benefits." 2
Upon examining the phrase "to him" we necessarily conclude that this is a designation of "any person" used as stated in the primary provision for reduction. The words "to him" as thus used have no meaning as to the manner of payment.
Since "to him" relates back to the designated "any person" it is the primary provision for reduction which governs those payments which are subject to being reduced from uninsured motorist coverage payments. Relying then upon the primary declaration of the legislation, the provision is that "Any loss payable ... to or for any person may be reduced." (Italics added.) Hence, as stated in Safeco Ins. Co. v. Houchins (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 12, 16, 90 Cal.Rptr. 414: "The language of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prudential-LMI Com. Insurance v. Superior Court, PRUDENTIAL-LMI
...should not be construed strictly against the insurer (unlike ambiguous or uncertain policy language). (Interinsurance Exchange v. Marquez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 652, 656, 172 Cal.Rptr. 263; Ichthys Inc. v. Guarantee Ins. Co. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 555, 558, 57 Cal.Rptr. 734.) With this histor......
-
Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. v. Superior Court (Lundberg)
...language. (Ichthys, Inc. v. Guarantee Ins. Co. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 555, 558, 57 Cal.Rptr. 734; Interinsurance Exchange v. Marquez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 652, 656, 172 Cal.Rptr. 263.) Numerous cases from other jurisdictions have also upheld the validity of such contractual limitations claus......
-
Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exchange
...directly from statutory language addressing the precise issue addressed by the clause in the policy (Interinsurance Exchange v. Marquez (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 652, 655-656, 172 Cal.Rptr. 263 [construction of Ins.Code, § 11580.2, subd. (h)(1) ]; Darrah v. California State Automobile Assn. (19......
-
General Cas. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
...(public policy interpretation of one-year suit provision in California standard form fire policy); Interinsurance Exchange v. Marquez (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 652, 656, 172 Cal.Rptr. 263 (auto policy containing Ins.Code provision allowing offset of workers' compensation benefits against unins......
-
CHAPTER 4
...not be construed strictly against the insurer (unlike ambiguous or uncertain policy language). (Interinsurance Exchange v. Marquez, 116 Cal. App. 3d 652, 656 (1981); Ichthys, Inc. v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 249 Cal. App. 2d 555, 558 (1967).) With this history in mind, we consider how to define ......
-
Financial Responsibility Assistance for Underground Storage Tanks: Can Washington State Run a Pollution Reinsurance Company?
...a rule of strict construction against the insurer does not apply. Inter Insurance Exch. of Auto. Club of Southern Cal. v. Marquez, 116 Cal. App. 3d 652, 656 172 Cal. Rptr. 263, 264 248. If the financial responsibility assurance program adopts a regulation incorporating the insurer's policy ......