Taylor v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1964 |
| Citation | 37 Cal.Rptr. 63,225 Cal.App.2d 80 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Margaret D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PREFERRED RISK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 21323. |
James P. Shovlin, Jr., San Francisco, for appellant, Herbert Chamberlin, San Francisco, of counsel.
Gonick & Schmid, Harry Gonick, Oakland, for respondent.
Defendant issued its automobile liability insurance policy to plaintiff's husband in 1961. The policy included the uninsured motorist provisions required by California law (Ins.Code, § 11580.2) with limit of $10,000 for injury to one person. Plaintiff, an occupant of the insured vehicle, was injured when it collided, on a California highway, with a car registered and principally used in Texas. Bodily injury liability insurance on that car was carried by a Texas company not licensed as an insurer in California, with maximum limits of only $5,000 for injury to one person.
Plaintiff filed an action in Alameda County against the Texas owner and driver, praying for $31,754.48 damages for her bodily injuries. She then asserted her claim against defendant under its uninsured motorist clause. Defendant denied liability, asserting that the Texas car was not uninsured. Plaintiff brought this declaratory relief action. Judgment declared the uninsured motorist coverage to be applicable, and defendant appeals.
Since the policy was issued May 9, 1961, and the accident occurred July 20, 1961, the applicable uninsured motorist statute is that in effect before the 1961 amendments (Stats.1959, c. 817, p. 2835). It requires (subd. [a]) 'coverage limits at least equal' to those required by the financial responsibility law, i. e. $10,000 for injury to one person (Veh.Code, §§ 16059, 16451) but defines an 'uninsured motor vehicle' as one to which 'there is no bodily injury liability insurance * * * applicable at the time of the accident' (subd. [b]).
The two provisions are in obvious conflict. The first evinces a clear legislative intent that every California motorist who is insured against liability for bodily injury shall himself be assured of payment of 'at least' $10,000 of an award to him for bodily injury caused to him by the actionable fault of another driver. This view of subdivision (a) is strengthened by its provision that the insurer is to be surety, in such minimum amount, for valid claims of the insured against an 'unknown' (i. e. hit-run) driver, or against one operating the car at fault without permission (i. e. a thief). The quoted provision of subdivision (b), literally applied, would mean that the insurer of the injured party would have no liability whatever as surety for the financially irresponsible wrongdoer if the latter carried insurance of $1,000, $500, or even $1, rather than the $10,000/20,000 limits contemplated by the act.
The conflict can be reconciled only by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Consolidated Freightways
...27 Cal.Rptr. 599; Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Armendariz (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 56, 64, 36 Cal.Rptr. 274; see Taylor v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 80, 82, 37 Cal.Rptr. 63.) The requirement of an omnibus coverage of permissive users (§ 16451) reflects a legislative purpose o......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Carroll
...363, 407 P.2d 275; Travelers Indem. Co. v. Kowalski (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 607, 609, 43 Cal.Rptr. 843; Taylor v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 80, 82, 37 Cal.Rptr. 63; Hendricks v. Meritplan Ins. Co. (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 133, 136, 22 Cal.Rptr. 682; Chadwick and Poche, C......
-
Wilhelm v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
...Co. (1967), 108 N.H. 131, 229 A.2d 179; Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fusco, 101 R.I. 350, 223 A.2d 447; Taylor v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. (1964), 225 Cal.App.2d 80, 37 Cal.Rptr. 63.' " 49 Ill.2d at 453-54, 275 N.E.2d at Therefore, it was held that, to the extent the policy definition conf......
-
Simonette v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
...therefore, answer the questions upon which advice is desired as follows: (1) 'Yes,' (2) 'No,' (3) 'Yes.' 1 Taylor v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co., 225 Cal.App.2d 80, 37 Cal.Rptr. 63; Kirkley v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 17 Cal.App.3d 1078, 95 Cal.Rptr. 427; Carrignan v. Allstate Ins. Co......