Lampton v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 16 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90CA1553,90CA1553 |
| Citation | 835 P.2d 532 |
| Parties | Marta LAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Cucullu & Pring, Michael D. Cucullu, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bennett and Hollaway, Cuba Y. Hollaway, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge METZGER.
Plaintiff, Marta Lampton, sought recovery for loss of consortium under the liability provisions of an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant, United Services Automobile Association. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Plaintiff's husband, a pedestrian, was severely injured when he was struck by a car driven by defendant's insured. Plaintiff was not present, nor did she witness the accident. The insurance policy issued by defendant provided liability coverage with payment limits of $50,000 per person up to a maximum total payment of $100,000 per accident.
Defendant paid plaintiff's husband the per person limit of $50,000 in settlement of his bodily injury claim. In addition, plaintiff pursued a loss of consortium claim against defendant (stipulated value of $50,000) arguing that her claim was entitled to separate and independent per person coverage. Defendant maintained that the liability provisions covered only bodily injury, and since loss of consortium was not a bodily injury, the policy did not provide separate per person coverage for plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, it denied payment.
The trial court, relying on Arguello v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 42 Colo.App. 372, 599 P.2d 266 (1979), held that plaintiff had not suffered a bodily injury and that, therefore, under the liability terms of the policy, she was not entitled to a separate recovery for her loss of consortium claim.
Plaintiff first contends that, in the absence of specific policy language which would include damages for "care and loss of services" within the "each person" coverage limit of $50,000, her loss of consortium claim is covered under the $100,000 "each accident" limit. We disagree.
The policy provides that: "[Defendant] will pay damages for bodily injury ... for which any covered person becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident." This liability coverage is limited, however, by a provision which states:
The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for 'each person' for Bodily Injury Liability is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one auto accident. Subject to this limit for 'each person', the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for 'each accident' for Bodily Injury Liability is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury resulting from any one auto accident.... This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of ... [c]laims made....
A person who has lost the society, companionship, and services of his or her spouse has sustained a personal injury. American Insurance Co. v. Naylor, 103 Colo. 461, 87 P.2d 260 (1939). This loss, although tangible, real, and compensable, is not a bodily injury within the commonly accepted meaning of that term. Arguello v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra.
Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that, since plaintiff did not suffer bodily injury, recovery for her loss of consortium claim should be denied.
Plaintiff also contends that the liability coverage provision is ambiguous and, therefore, should be construed against the defendant insurer. She argues that the term "bodily injury" is not defined in the policy and "sustained by any one person" could be read to modify either "bodily injury" or "all damages." Employing the latter interpretation, plaintiff asserts that she would be entitled to coverage under a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littlefield v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...832, 833-34 (Colo.App.1990); Home Life Ins. Co. v. Clay, 13 Kan.App.2d 435, 773 P.2d 666, 676 (1989).15 Lampton v. United Services Auto. Ass'n., 835 P.2d 532, 534 (Colo.App.1992) ("regardless of number of claims made"); Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Knight, 113 Or.App. 489, 833 P.2d 339, 3......
-
Gonzales v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...confronted this issue. See, e.g., Weekley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 537 So.2d 477, 480 (Ala.1989); Lampton v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 835 P.2d 532, 534 (Colo.Ct.App.1992), cert. denied (Sept. 14, 1992); Creamer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 161 Ill.App.3d 223, 112 Ill.Dec. ......
-
Swan v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
...meaning. "Loss of consortium" means loss of "the society, companionship, and services of [a] spouse." Lampton v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 835 P.2d 532, 534 (Colo.App.1992). Used in conjunction with "loss of consortium," the phrase "injury to the relationship" is, in our view, limited to t......
-
Spaur v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...sustained bodily injury and includes within that coverage any derivative claims of other persons. Compare Lampton v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 835 P.2d 532 (Colo.App.1992) (construing similar policy language); Kinsella v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 826 P.2d 433 (Colo.App.1992) (con......