Warren v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon

• Decision Date: 27 February 1991
• Citation: 806 P.2d 710,106 Or.App. 116
• Parties: Ginny M. WARREN, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation, Respondent. 87-0103C; CA A61445.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 710

806 P.2d 710

106 Or.App. 116

Ginny M. WARREN, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation Respondent.

87-0103C; CA A61445.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 1990.

Decided Feb. 27, 1991.

Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, argued the cause, for appellant. With her on the briefs, was D. Lawrence Wobbrock, Portland.

Carrell F. Bradley, Hillsboro, argued the cause, for respondent. On the brief, was Larry A. Brisbee, Hillsboro.

Before WARREN, P.J., and RIGGS and EDMONDS, JJ.

WARREN, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment for defendant in which the trial court concluded that an automobile insurance policy excluded coverage for her injuries. ¹ We affirm.

Plaintiff was injured when the car in which she was riding was involved in a collision. Cooper, the driver, had borrowed the car from her grandmother, to whom she had recently transferred its ownership, while Cooper's own car was being repaired. Cooper had signed and dated the certificate of title, but her grandmother had not registered the car with the Motor Vehicles Division. Defendant, Cooper's insurer, denied coverage, contending that the insurance policy excluded coverage. The trial court agreed and entered a summary judgment for defendant.

The insurance policy provides that

"coverage does not apply to:

"Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use by any person of a vehicle in which you have transferred full ownership interest but the transfer does not comply with the vehicle transfer of ownership provisions of the state motor vehicle law." (Emphasis in original omitted.)

At the time of the accident, former ORS 481.405(1) ² provided:

"To transfer title or any interest in a motor vehicle * * * issued a certificate of title under this chapter, the transferor shall sign the certificate and fill in any information required by the division in the appropriate places on the certificate. The transferee shall, within 30 days after the transfer, present the certificate to the division, accompanied by a fee of $7, whereupon a new registration card shall be issued and delivered to the transferee. A new certificate of title shall also be issued to the transferee and delivered to the first security interest holder in order of priority, if any, otherwise, to the transferee." (Emphasis supplied.)

It is undisputed that Cooper had signed and dated the certificate of title before the accident. It is also undisputed that the new owner had not registered the car within 30 days after the transfer.

Plaintiff asserts that the "statute clearly contemplates that the 'transfer' is complete at the point when the transferor delivers the filled-in certificate to the transferee." Having transferred the title in that way, plaintiff argues, Cooper had complied with all of the requirements of the statute that she could control and, therefore, had complied with "the vehicle transfer of ownership provisions of the state motor vehicle law," as required by the policy exclusion. In other words, her argument is that, by the very act of transferring title, she necessarily complied with the transfer of ownership provisions of the statute and is entitled to coverage. Further, she argues, registration, which occurs after the transfer, cannot be considered a state vehicle transfer of ownership provision. Defendant argues that the plain language of the policy requires compliance with the motor vehicle transfer of ownership provisions and that the law requires both indorsement of the title and registration.

The policy provision is not ambiguous. It says that the transfer must comply with state transfer of ownership provisions, not that the transferor must comply with those provisions. Plaintiff's argument attempts to add words to the policy exclusion, so that the exclusion would apply if the insured had transferred full ownership interest but the insured had not complied with the vehicle transfer of ownership provisions of state law. That is not what the exclusion says, and we will not rewrite the contract to make it say that. ³

The decisive question is what the state transfer of ownership provisions require. Assuming, as do the parties, that Cooper's indorsement of the certificate of title was necessary to transfer ownership, ⁴ the trial court...