Lampton v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 90CA1553

• Court: Court of Appeals of Colorado
• Citation: 835 P.2d 532
• Docket Number: No. 90CA1553,90CA1553
• Parties: Marta LAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee. . III
• Decision Date: 16 January 1992

Page 532

835 P.2d 532 Marta LAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90CA1553. Colorado Court of Appeals,
Div. III. Jan. 16, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1992.
Certiorari Denied Sept. 14, 1992.

Page 533

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.

I.

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...