Urtado v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. C--478,C--478 |
| Citation | 528 P.2d 222,187 Colo. 24 |
| Parties | Mary S. URTADO, widow of Joseph F. Urtado, Deceased, et al., Petitioners, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Sol Cohen and Morton L. Davis, Alperstein, Plaut & Barnes, P.C., Denver, for petitioners.
Burnett, Horan & Hilgers, William P. Horan, Harry G. Titcombe, Jr., Denver, for respondent.
Because of numerous parties we will refer to them by name. We granted certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed a trial court summary judgment for Allstate Insurance Company in Urtado v. Shupe, Colo.App., 517 P.2d 1357 (1973). We affirm.
This is an action for the wrongful death of Joseph Urtado brought by his widow and children against Bruce Shupe and his father, Burrell. At the time of the accident Bruce was employed by his father and lived in the same household. He was using his father's truck to retrieve an extension ladder and return it to the job site. There has not been a trial on the main suit involving whether the Shupes are liable to the Urtados.
Bruce Shupe was insured by Allstate, which was made a third-party defendant when it denied coverage. The policy provides that Bruce was insured with respect 'to the owned or a non-owned automobile.' The policy defines a 'non-owned automobile' as one 'not owned by the named insured Or any relative.' (Emphasis added.) The term 'relative' is further defined in the policy as a 'relative * * * who is a resident of the same household' as the named insured.
Alistate's position is that reading the policy as an integral document, Bruce is insured while driving a non-owned automobile only if it does not belong to a relative who lives in the same household. The trial court agreed, and granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment of dismissal as to it.
Insured Bruce's argument is that it is unusual for a restriction on a non-owned car to appear in the Definition section of the policy. From this it is contended that the definition operates as an exclusion from the broad overall coverage, and it should have appeared in the Exclusion section of the policy; and since it did not, the manner of conveying coverage to the purchaser is ambiguous. His assertion is that an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion as sold to the lay, unschooled public and that what is capable of plain, open and unequivocal language should be so stated--without deception, artifice or concealment.
While it is certainly true that what appears in a contract should be open and forthright, nevertheless, one cannot read only selected portions of an insurance policy. It contains a plain admonition on the first page that All terms of the policy are to be considered, including the important definition section.
The provisions of an insurance policy cannot be read in isolation, but must be read as a whole. Coxen v. Western Empire Life Insurance Co., 168 Colo. 444, 452 P.2d 16 (1969). Considering the contract as a whole, we cannot say that it is ambiguous. Since it is not, this court may not rewrite it nor limit its effect by strained construction. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. DeSalvo, 174 Colo. 115, 482 P.2d 380 (1971); 7 Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice § 292.2 (F. Lewis ed. 1966).
The Court of Appeals aptly held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 86SC13
...Where an insurance policy is unambiguous a court should not rewrite it to arrive at a strained construction. Urtado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 187 Colo. 24, 528 P.2d 222 (1974). However, where there is ambiguity or uncertainty as to coverage, courts should construe the policy in favor of the ins......
-
DiOrio v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.
...authority construing the non-owned automobile provision are Brooks v. Link, 212 Kan. 690, 512 P.2d 374 (1973); Urtado v. Allstate, 187 Colo. 24, 528 P.2d 222 (1974) (En banc ), affirming Urtado v. Shupe, 33 Colo.App. 162, 528 P.2d 1357 (Ct.App.1973); Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Beekman, 118 Ariz.......
-
Davenport Peters Co. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
...support for the doctrine: e. g., Urtado v. Shupe, 33 Colo.App. 162, 517 P.2d 1357, 1360 (1973), aff'd sub nom. Urtado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 187 Colo. 24, 528 P.2d 222 (1974) (dissent; drive-other-cars coverage); Lewis v. Aetna Ins. Co., 264 Or. 314, 323, 505 P.2d 914, 918 (1973) (concurring......
-
Terranova v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...(Colo.1981). A court may not rewrite an unambiguous policy nor limit its effect by a strained construction. Urtado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 187 Colo. 24, 26, 528 P.2d 222, 223 (1974). A policy term is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. See Travelers Ins. Co. v.......
-
The Catch 22 of Underinsured Motorist Settlements
...Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County v. Guaranty Insurance Co., 90 F.R.D. 405 (D.Colo. 1981); Urtado v. Allstate Insurance Co., 187 Colo. 24, 528 P.2d 222 (Colo. 1974). 16. Beck v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 38 Colo.App. 77, 553 P.2d 397 (1976); Johnson v. American Family Life ......