Mission Ins. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 12 November 1965
• Citation: 407 P.2d 275,47 Cal.Rptr. 363,63 Cal.2d 508
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 407 P.2d 275 MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Alfred Louis BROWN et al., Defendants and Respondents. L. A. 28114.

Page 363

47 Cal.Rptr. 363

63 Cal.2d 508, 407 P.2d 275

MISSION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Alfred Louis BROWN et al., Defendants and Respondents.

L. A. 28114.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Nov. 12, 1965.

Kirtland & Packard and Robert L. Wilson, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

H. Thomas Ellerby and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant.

Masry, Hartley & David and Edward L. Masry, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

McCOMB, Justice.

From a judgment in favor of defendants in an action wherein plaintiff insurance company sought a declaration of its rights under an automobile insurance policy, plaintiff appeals.

Facts: Defendants, while occupants of a vehicle insured by plaintiff, received personal injuries in a collision with an uninsured vehicle.

The accident occurred in Mexico, within 75 miles of the United States border, on a trip that did not exceed 10 days.

The general policy provisions included the following: 'MEXICO COVERAGE--LIMITED--It is agreed that the coverage provided by this policy is extended to apply while the automobile insured is being used for occasional trips into that part of * * * Mexico lying not more than 75 miles' from the United States border for a period not exceeding 10 days.

An endorsement to the policy contained an uninsured motorist coverage provision, together with a purported territorial limitation, reading: 'This endorsement applies only to accidents which occur * * * within the United States of America, its territories or possessions, or Canada.'

Question: Is the purported territorial limitation in the endorsement void because it is in conflict with section 11580.2 of the Insurance Code?

Yes. Section 11580.2, as it read at the time of the accident, provided, in part: 'No policy of bodily injury liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle, shall be issued or delivered in this State to the owner or operator of a motor vehicle, or shall be issued or delivered by any insurer licensed in this State upon any motor vehicle then principally used or principally garaged in this State, unless the policy contains, or has added to it by endorsement, a provision with coverage limits at least equal to the financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 16059 of the Vehicle Code insuring the insured or his legal representative for all sums within such limits which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily injury from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. The insurer and any named insured may by agreement in writing delete the provision covering damage caused by an uninsured motor vehicle. * * *'

It will be noted that the only way in which uninsured motorist coverage may be waived is by an agreement in writing, signed by the insurer and the insured, deleting the provision. Admittedly, there was no such agreement in the present case.

There is no express provision in section 11580.2 as to the territorial area within which the insured must be protected against damage caused by an uninsured vehicle. ¹ The section, however, was designed to minimize losses to the people of California who are involved in accidents with uninsured or financially irresponsible motorists, and it would appear that the public policy of this state, as expressed in said section, requires that the insured be protected against damages for bodily injury caused by an uninsured motorist in the same territory in which the...