State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ball

• Decision Date: 21 December 1981
• Citation: 127 Cal.App.3d 568,179 Cal.Rptr. 644
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Amanda BALL, aka Amanda McBroom, Jacob Zodieru, Ruth Zodieru, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Jacob ZODIERU and Ruth Zodieru, Cross-Complainants and Appellants, v. Amanda BALL, aka Amanda McBroom, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Cross- Defendants. Amanda BALL, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, et al., Cross-Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 62169.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

Page 644

179 Cal.Rptr. 644

127 Cal.App.3d 568

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Amanda BALL, aka Amanda McBroom, Jacob Zodieru, Ruth Zodieru, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Jacob ZODIERU and Ruth Zodieru, Cross-Complainants and Appellants, v. Amanda BALL, aka Amanda McBroom, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Cross- Defendants.

Amanda BALL, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, et al., Cross-Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 62169.

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

Dec. 21, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1982.

Hearing Denied March 3, 1982.

Caton & Glazer, Inc. by Keith Glazer, Los Angeles, for Amanda Ball, aka Amanda McBroom, defendant and appellant.

Spray, Gould & Bowers by Daniel O. Howard, Richard C. Turner, Los Angeles, for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a corporation, plaintiff and respondent.

ROTH, Presiding Justice.

On January 12, 1978, a pedestrian, Jacob Zodieru, was struck by a vehicle driven by appellant Amanda Ball. Ruth Zodieru, Jacob's wife, was not present at the scene of the accident nor did she suffer any physical injuries as a direct result of it.

At the time of the incident, Amanda was insured by virtue of a policy of insurance issued by respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The policy limits applicable to bodily injury coverage were specified in the agreement to be $50,000 each person, $100,000 each occurrence.

Jacob and Ruth Zodieru thereafter filed suit against Amanda; Jacob for bodily injuries and resulting special damages, Ruth for loss of her husband's consortium.

On September 28, 1979, State Farm filed its complaint for declaratory relief, wherein it sought a determination of the amount of coverage available to Amanda respecting Ruth's claim, its own position being that such coverage should not exceed the $50,000 "each person" limit.

The trial court, on State Farm's motion for summary judgment, so decided. This appeal followed. ¹ We affirm.

A review of the pertinent provisions of the insurance policy in question provides the framework for our disposition. So, it is initially set out as "Coverage A" under the contract that State Farm agrees "To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of (A) bodily injury sustained by other persons * * *."

It is then specified under the "Limits of Liability" portion of the agreement that, respecting Coverage A, "The limit of liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each person' is the limit of the company's liability for all damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident, and subject to this provision, the limit of liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each accident' is the total limit of the company's liability for all such damages for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. For the purposes of this provision the 'bodily injury sustained by one person' as used herein, shall be deemed to include all injury and damages sustained by others as a consequence of such bodily injury." Finally, it is provided in the applicable "Definitions" section that "Damages-wherever used with respect to coverage A includes damages for care and loss of services." ²

In United Services Automobile Assn. v. Warner (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 957, 135 Cal.Rptr. 34, in a factual setting otherwise substantially identical to that present (except that the initial, direct injury was to the wife rather than to the husband), the limitation of liability provisions of the insurance policy involved specified that:

"The limit of bodily injury liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each person' is the limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one occurrence; the limit of such liability stated in the declarations as applicable to 'each occurrence' is, subject to the above provision respecting each person, the total limit of the company's liability for all such damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by two or more persons as the result of any one occurrence."

It was posited there that:

"The sole issue argued in this appeal is which policy limit applies to the husband's claim for loss of consortium. Does the claim for loss of consortium arise out of bodily injuries sustained by 'one person' (the wife) so as to make the 'per person' limit applicable; or is the claim for loss of consortium a claim for bodily injury to a second person (the husband) so as to invoke the 'per occurrence' limit for injuries to 'two or more persons as a result of any one occurrence.' "

(Id., at p. 961, 135 Cal.Rptr. 34.)

The conclusion reached was that the loss "arose out of" the bodily injury suffered by the person (there the wife) who was involved in the accident. In so deciding the court in Warner observed that:

"The cause of action for loss...