National Auto. & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Frankel
Decision Date | 11 August 1988 |
Docket Number | No. B,B |
Citation | 203 Cal.App.3d 830,250 Cal.Rptr. 236 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Appellant, v. Beverly Jill FRANKEL, Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Respondent. 029970. |
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett, Peter J. Godfrey, Tracy W. Goldberg, and Clifford H. Woosley, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Frank Revere, Jan Frankel Schau, and Revere, Rykoff & Wallace, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment rejecting an insurer's assertion of noncoverage under the uninsured motorist portion of an automobile insurance policy.
The insurer sued its insured for a judicial declaration of noncoverage. The insured cross-complained against the insurer for bad faith, pleading the usual tort, contract, and statutory theories of recovery. This cross-complaint was severed, and its resolution deferred, while the insurer's declaratory judgment claim was tried. Consequently the declaratory judgment from which the insurer appeals is a nonfinal judgment, and hence nonappealable. (E.g., Crocker-Anglo Nat. Bank v. Kuchman (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 589, 15 Cal.Rptr. 230.) The severance of the complaint from the cross-complaint does not make the judgment on the complaint separately appealable, unlike the situation in Schonfeld v. City of Vallejo (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 401, 123 Cal.Rptr. 669, because the complaint raises issues closely related to those posed by the yet-untried cross-complaint. Hence we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
We will, however, treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate (see, e.g., Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 400-401, 197 Cal.Rptr. 843, 673 P.2d 720), and our order placing the cause on calendar will be deemed an order to show cause why the petition should not be granted. We thus decide the case on its merits.
The facts are undisputed. Respondent, Beverly Jill Frankel, was an additional named insured under an automobile policy procured by her father as named insured and issued by appellant, National Automobile and Casualty Company. The policy included uninsured motorist coverage with a policy limit of $500,000. This policy was in force when Frankel, driving someone else's automobile, sustained serious injuries in a traffic accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The automobile Frankel was driving at the time of the accident was covered by insurance maintained by its owner through another carrier, State Farm Insurance Company. This State Farm policy included uninsured motorist coverage with a policy limit of $30,000, and these benefits covered Frankel. State Farm agreed to pay Frankel the full policy limit of $30,000.
National, however, denied coverage under Frankel's own policy, relying on portions of the following three consecutive paragraphs in the policy:
The following provisions apply with respect to the Uninsured Motorists Coverage in lieu of the "Other Insurance" provisions of the policy:
[A] Other Insurance: With respect to bodily injury to any insured occupying an automobile other than an owned automobile to which the Liability Coverage applies, the insurance hereunder shall not apply if the owner of such automobile has insurance similar to that provided for herein.
[B] Subject to the preceding paragraph, if the insured has other similar insurance available to him, any damages shall be deemed not to exceed the higher of the applicable limits of the respective coverages and such damages shall be pro-rated between such coverages in such proportion as each coverage bears to the total of such limits.
The notations [A] and [B] do not appear in the policy; we have inserted them to clarify the ensuing discussion.
National's position was that clause [A] was applicable to the facts, and therefore, according to its terms, "the insurance hereunder shall not apply." National further contended that clause [B] was inapplicable, because its introductory phrase ("Subject to the preceding paragraph") meant, in effect, 'If [A] is applicable to the facts, then [B] will not be applicable.'
Frankel also had two contentions. The first was that clause [A] was inapplicable to the facts, because due to the enormous disparity of the policy limits in the two policies, the State Farm coverage was not "insurance similar to that provided for herein." Her second contention was that the introductory phrase of clause [B] () was too ambiguous to bear the interpretation National placed on it, so that [B] stood as National's binding promise of pro rata benefits in this case.
The trial court sustained both Frankel's contentions.
There is no doubt that clauses [A] and [B] were inspired by Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivisions (c)(2) and (d) respectively. These two provisions say:
(c) The insurance coverage provided for in this section does not apply either as primary or as excess coverage to:
(1) ...
(2) To bodily injury of the insured while in or upon or while entering into or alighting from a motor vehicle other than the described motor vehicle if the owner thereof has insurance similar to that provided in this section.
(3)-(7) ...
(d) Subject to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the policy or endorsement may provide that if the insured has insurance available to the insured under more than one uninsured motorist coverage provision, any damages shall not be deemed to exceed the higher of the applicable limits of the respective coverages, and such damages shall be prorated between the applicable coverages as the limits of each coverage bear to the total of such limits.
The presence of the ambiguous phrase "Subject to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)" makes reconciliation of these two provisions difficult. 1 Without that phrase, the two provisions, read together, would mean "If the insured is injured in a vehicle other than the one he has insured, and the owner of that vehicle maintains similar insurance, the injured insured's own policy will not provide benefits unless it specifically says it will." With the addition of the ambiguous cross-reference, however, it becomes harder to reconcile the two provisions, since subdivision (d) purports to be overridden by subdivision (c)(2), leaving unclear what, if anything, remains of subdivision (d).
National explains subdivision (d) ( ) as covering only the situation where the insured is injured while a pedestrian, or while an occupant of someone else's car not covered by uninsured motorist coverage procured by its owner, and the injured insured himself also has a second uninsured motorist policy. This reading is less than self-evident, and it is hard to swallow National's characterization of such a situation as a "much broader, even universal" one compared with Frankel's situation.
The question is ultimately one of interpreting the provisions of National's policy. National, in effect, proposes the following reading of the policy:
It would take clearer language than that found in Frankel's policy to compel this result. The trial court properly interpreted the policy to mean,
This reading is consistent with the apparent philosophy of the no-cumulation-of-benefits clauses sprinkled liberally throughout section 11580.2. (See subds. (c)(4), (d), (e), (h)(1), (h)(2), (q).)
National's position necessarily centers on the meaning of the introductory phrase of clause [B] (). It contends this phrase clearly means "In the event the preceding paragraph is inapplicable." "Subject to" means contingent or conditional upon, as in "subject to my approval." (Webster's New 20th Cent. Dict. p. 1813 (2d ed. unabridged 1962).) This usage refutes National's reading, for the phrase suggests clause [B]'s application is "contingent on paragraph [A]'s applying," whereas National claims it means "contingent on paragraph [A]'s not applying."
Furthermore, the introductory phrase of clause [B] tracks subsection (d) of the statute, and it seems clear that subdivision (d) authorizes insurers, if they wish, to insert optional policy provisions more favorable to the insured than the no-coverage principle of subdivision (c)(2). (Kirby v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 9, 13, 24 Cal.Rptr. 509; Phoenix Assur. Co. v. Larsen (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 94, 97, 50 Cal.Rptr. 111.) As pithily explained in Prieto v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 891, 893, 74 Cal.Rptr. 472,
National points out that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara
...'independent' " from other causes of action alleging fraudulent conveyances of guarantors' assets]; National Auto. & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Frankel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 830, 250 Cal.Rptr. 236 [rejecting appeal from judgment on complaint "severed" from untried cross-complaint because the deci......
-
Rangel v. Interinsurance Exchange
...the statute must be given a construction that advances, not thwarts, its remedial purpose." (National Auto. & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Frankel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 830, 836, fn. 2, 250 Cal.Rptr. 236; accord, e.g., Hefner v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1527, 1530-1531, 260 Cal.R......
-
Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
...Auto. & Cas. Inc. Co. v. Underwood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 31, 41-42, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 316; National Auto. & Casualty Inc. Co. v. Frankel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 830, 836-837, 250 Cal.Rptr. 236, disapproved on another ground in Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 744, fn. 11,......
-
Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Wolf
...subdivision (d) will apply, given its cross-reference to subdivision (c)(2) and its focus on "more than one" UMC policy. As the court in National Auto recognized, "[w]ith the addition of the ... [subdivision (d)] cross-reference [to subdivision (c)(2)], ... it becomes harder to reconcile th......