Pham v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 23 December 1988 |
Docket Number | No. B032533,B032533 |
Citation | 254 Cal.Rptr. 152,206 Cal.App.3d 1193 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | OANH THI PHAM, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. |
Hiestand & Brandt, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant [Allstate].
Donald M. Gindy, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent [Pham].
Plaintiff Oanh Thi Pham commenced a declaratory relief action against defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) seeking a determination that she was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under a policy issued by Allstate. The court found in favor of plaintiff. Allstate appeals. We affirm.
The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts which provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (a)(1) commands that uninsured motorist coverage must afford protection against injuries resulting from "hit-and-run" drivers. Specifically, it declares that the term " 'uninsured motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which there is no bodily injury liability insurance or bond applicable at the time of the accident ... or the owner or operator thereof be unknown, provided that, with respect to an 'uninsured motor vehicle' whose owner or operator is unknown: [p ] (1) The bodily injury has arisen out of physical contact of the automobile with the insured or with an automobile which the insured is occupying." (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (b).)
In the instant case, Allstate's policy, in slightly different language, provided the coverage mandated by the statute. It provided that Allstate would "pay all damages that an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured auto ..." and that (Emphasis in original.)
The trial court concluded that the definitional language of Allstate's policy encompassed a rock falling from a dump truck. The court stated:
On appeal, Allstate asserts that its policy furnishes plaintiff no more coverage than required by Insurance Code section 11580.2, and that under the case authorities interpreting the statute, a dislodged rock cannot constitute "physical contact" between the unknown vehicle and the insured. We agree that the policy provision is no broader than the statute. Its interpretation is another matter.
As we noted in Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Lopez (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 441, 443-444, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834, (See also Orpustan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 988, 994, 103 Cal.Rptr. 919, 500 P.2d 1119; Boyd v. Interinsurance Exchange (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 761, 763, 186 Cal.Rptr. 443.)
In Lopez, a hit-and-run driver struck one Clements, propelling the car driven by Clements into Lopez' vehicle. Finding no physical contact between the unknown driver and Lopez, the trial court declared that there was no coverage. (Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Lopez, supra, 238 Cal.App.2d 441, 442-443, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834.) On appeal, however, we reversed. In so doing, we observed that "when the Legislature established the requirement of physical contact in the present law, it intended to make a distinction between a direct and an indirect application of force similar to that which the common law had earlier found useful in distinguishing between trespass and case. (Id. at p. 445-446, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834.) We also suggested that "If Car X had lost a wheel and the wheel had hit Car C, this would clearly be direct physical touching of Car C by a part of Car X." (Id. at p. 444, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834.)
Here, in an uninterrupted chain, a rock tumbling from the passing dump truck struck the ground and rebounded into the windshield of the insured vehicle in which plaintiff was an occupant. There was no intervening force to break the chain of causation, nor did the rock first come to rest before colliding with the car. (Cf. Barnes v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 541, 230 Cal.Rptr. 800, wherein the court held that a vehicle striking an inert box of dinette chairs which sometime earlier had fallen off a truck did not satisfy the physical contact requirement.)
Allstate, nevertheless, relies on two cases from other jurisdictions which have refused to find that debris from an unknown vehicle can result in physical contact within the meaning of their uninsured motorist statutes. In Kersten v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exchange (1978), 82 Mich.App. 459, 267 N.W.2d 425, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 92-115
...Shaffer involved a claim against the liability insurer of the passenger who did the shooting.1 See Oanh Thi Pham v. Allstate Insurance Co., 206 Cal.App.3d 1193, 254 Cal.Rptr. 152 (1988) (physical contact requirement is met when either a part of a vehicle or an object which the vehicle is ca......
-
Elchehimi v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
...an object propelled by the tire of an unidentified vehicle collides with the insured vehicle. See Thi Pham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1198, 254 Cal.Rptr. 152 (2d Dist. 1988); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Guest, 203 Ga.App. 711, 417 S.E.2d 419, 422 (1992); Ill. Natl. Ins. Co......
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Elchehimi
...some states require coverage when the insured's injuries are the result of contact with cargo, e.g., Pham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.3d 1193, 254 Cal.Rptr. 152, 155 (1988), debris propelled by another vehicle, e.g., So. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 507 So.2d 369, 372 (Miss.19......
-
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Deville
...Allstate Ins. Co. v. Killakey, 78 N.Y.2d 325, 574 N.Y.S.2d 927, 580 N.E.2d 399 (1991); see also Pham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.3d 1193, 254 Cal.Rptr. 152 (1988) (physical contact requirement satisfied where rock fell from unidentified dump truck and struck insured's windshield); Har......