State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Elkins

• Decision Date: 21 October 1975
• Citation: 125 Cal.Rptr. 139,52 Cal.App.3d 534
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sharon ELKINS et al., Defendants and Respondents. Sharon ELKINS, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp., Cross-Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 15098.

Page 139

125 Cal.Rptr. 139

52 Cal.App.3d 534

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sharon ELKINS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Sharon ELKINS, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corp., Cross-Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 15098.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Oct. 21, 1975.

Spray, Gould & Bowers and Daniel O. Howard, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Tyre & Kamins and Peter M. Appleton, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

OPINION

TAMURA, Associate Justice.

This is a declaratory relief action to determine whether two automobile liability insurance policies issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm) covered the daughter of the named insured in connection with an automobile accident in which she was involved and which resulted in personal injury to one Sharon Elkins. State Farm appeals from an adverse judgment following a court trial.

The policies in question were issued to Lyle Burt as named insured. However, State Farm was notified that his daughter Jayne Burt was a driver who should be covered by the policies and premiums were computed on that basis. The car driven by Jayne at the time of the accident did not belong to her father but was one which she had borrowed for a short period from one of her friends. Regarding nonowned automobiles, the policies insured Lyle Burt and all relatives who were residents of his household. The principal issue litigated below was whether at the time of the accident Jayne was a 'resident of the household' of her father within the meaning of the policy.

The evidence introduced at trial consisted almost entirely of the deposition of Jayne Burt in which she described her living arrangements at the time of the accident. The accident occurred on July 31, 1971. According to her deposition, she was then 19 years old, an unmarried, unemancipated minor. Prior to February 1971, she had been a student at Fullerton Junior College. She decided not to continue at that school but instead applied for admission to California State College at Fullerton for the fall semester, 1971. In May 1971, she obtained a full-time position with Pacific Telephone Company in Anaheim which she hoped to continue on a part-time basis while attending the state college. About the end of May she began renting a furnished apartment some four miles from her parents' home. ¹ When asked why she did so, she replied, in essence, that the move was an experiment designed to test her ability to be independent. ² She continued to maintain a room in the family house where she kept some of her belongings and to which she returned when her parents were away from the house and she was needed to take care of the younger children. ³ During the six to eight weeks preceding the accident she estimated that she took 35 to 39 meals at her parents' home. Her parents allowed her to use the family cars when one was available. While at the apartment she paid for her rent, food and utilities but her parents had promised to pay half of her school expenses when she resumed her studies. Most of the dishes and cooking ware for the apartment were borrowed from her parents and subsequently returned.

In July 1971, prior to the accident, Lyle Burt learned he was to be transferred shortly to Houston, Texas. Jayne and her parents decided that she would move also, which she subsequently did, because she did not want to be separated from her parents by such a great distance. It was decided that Jayne would stay in Fullerton through October in order to complete six months on her job before resigning. Before the accident many of Jayne's belongings were shipped to Houston along with those of her parents. Her parents left about a week after the accident. Jayne joined them in Houston around November 1, 1971.

The trial judge found that 'On July 31, 1971, Jayne Burt's permanent residence was the home of her parents,' and concluded that 'On July 31, 1971 Jayne Burt was a resident of the household of Lyle S. Burt.' The only issue on appeal is whether the evidence supports the court's finding. For the reasons to be stated, we conclude that it does.

Preliminarily, we note that there is a strong presumption in favor of the correctness of the judgment below. This is so not only because the well-established rules of judicial review require us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondent, but also because, in doubtful cases, the law favors the insured over the insurer. Any ambiguity or uncertainty in an insurance policy is to be resolved against the insurer; if semantically permissible, the contract will be given such construction as will fairly achieve its object of securing indemnity to the insured for the losses to which the insurance relates; if the insurer uses language which is uncertain any reasonable doubt will be resolved against it; if the doubt relates to extent or fact of coverage, whether as to peril insured against, the amount of liability or the person or persons protected, the language will be understood in its most inclusive sense, for the benefit of the insured. (Holz Rubber Co., Inc. v. American Star Ins. Co., 14 Cal.3d 45, 59--60, 120 Cal.Rptr. 415, 533 P.2d 1055; Crane v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 5 Cal.3d 112, 115, 95 Cal.Rptr. 513, 485 P.2d 1129; Continental Cas. Co. v. Phoenix Constr. Co., 46 Cal.2d 423, 437--438, 296 P.2d 801; Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Home Indemnity Co., 241 Cal.App.2d 303, 306--307, 50 Cal.Rptr. 508, and cases cited therein.)

Next we note, as State Farm points out, that on the precise issue before us, persons to be afforded liability coverage regarding a nonowned automobile, the terms of the policy control. There is no statute specifying the extent of coverage which must be afforded as regards nonowned automobiles. The insured and insurer could tailor the extent of the coverage according to their own desires.

The policies in question provided coverage to the named insured and 'if residents of the same household, his spouse or the relatives of either. . . .' The policies also contain the following definition: 'Resident or Reside--when used with reference to the named insured's household, means bodily presence in such household and an intention to continue to dwell therein. However, the named insured's unmarried and unemancipated children, while away from his household attending school, are deemed to be residents of his household.'

This definition is not free of ambiguity. Obviously, 'bodily presence' does not mean bodily presence at the very moment of the accident since this would provide an absurdly narrow and virtually worthless coverage. Nor can bodily presence be taken to exclude absence from the home for a weekend holiday since this also would provide an absurdly limited construction which would not meet the reasonable expectations of the insured. Exactly what degree and form of bodily presence is intended...