Williams-Diehl v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., WILLIAMS-DIEH
Decision Date | 21 September 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88CA0888,P,WILLIAMS-DIEH,88CA0888 |
Citation | 793 P.2d 587 |
Parties | Frankielaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. . IV |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Bailey-Robinson, P.C., David R. Bailey, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Retherford, Mullen, Rector & Johnson, Neil C. Bruce, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge TURSI.
Plaintiff, Frankie Williams-Diehl, appeals from the summary judgment entered for defendant, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, in this action for declaratory relief. We affirm.
The events underlying plaintiff's claim are undisputed and have been stipulated to by the parties.
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist. When the collision occurred, plaintiff was operating a vehicle which he was in the process of purchasing from his brother. However, the vehicle was still titled in the brother's name. He was also living in his brother's house at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff submitted claims to State Farm under an automobile insurance policy issued to his brother. The policy, which provided for both personal injury protection and uninsured motorist coverage, defined the term 'insured' to include any relative residing with the named insured.
Because the automobile was not a designated vehicle under the policy, State Farm denied coverage. It claimed that coverage was barred by the following exclusions:
TO YOU [Named Insured] OR ANY RELATIVE WHILE OCCUPYING OR THROUGH BEING STRUCK BY A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU. This does not apply to your car or a newly acquired car. [YOUR CAR--means the CAR or the vehicle described on the declarations page]
TO ANY RELATIVE WHILE OCCUPYING OR THROUGH BEING STRUCK BY A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY SUCH RELATIVE AND FOR WHICH COVERAGE REQUIRED BY THE NO-FAULT ACT IS NOT IN EFFECT.
....
2. For BODILY INJURY TO AN INSURED
a. WHILE OCCUPYING, OR
b. THROUGH BEING STRUCK BY A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU, YOUR SPOUSE OR ANY RELATIVE IF IT IS NOT INSURED FOR THIS COVERAGE UNDER THIS POLICY...."
Plaintiff contends that these exclusions are contrary to public policy and are, therefore, unenforceable. We disagree and conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for State Farm on the basis of the exclusions.
Section 10-4-702, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 4A).
Under § 10-4-707(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 4A), the no-fault coverages mandated by the Act are to be applied to:
The exception contained in § 10-4-707(1)(a) authorizes an insurer to deny coverage in the same situation where an "owned-but-uninsured" exclusion would operate. Because § 10-4-707(1)(b) extends personal injury protection to an insured relative only under the same circumstances that would support coverage in § 10-4-107(1)(a), we similarly conclude that application of an "owned-but-uninsured" exclusion to relatives of the named insured is also statutorily authorized.
Having upheld the validity of this particular exclusion, we further find that it should be given full effect as it was clearly and unambiguously set forth in the policy. See Gulf Insurance Co. v. State of Colorado, 43 Colo.App. 360, 607 P.2d 1016 (1979).
II
The validity of the "owned but uninsured vehicle" exclusion contained in "Coverage" U of the policy at issue is a separate question inasmuch as Colorado's uninsured motorist statute is not part of the Act.
A split of authority exists among the many jurisdictions that have addressed the effectiveness of the exclusion. 12A G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, § 45:636 (M. Rhodes rev. 2d ed. (1981); 2 N.P. Terry, No-Fault & Uninsured Motorist Automobile Insurance § 24.10 (1984).
A number of decisions have held the "owned-but-uninsured" exclusionary clause unenforceable. See Bradley v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 1, 294 N.W.2d 141 (1980); Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 188 Conn. 245, 449 A.2d 157 (1982); Kau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 58 Haw. 49, 564 P.2d 443 (1977); Kaufmann v. Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 52 Ill.App.3d 940, 10 Ill.Dec. 776, 368 N.E.2d 371 (1977), aff'd, 76 Ill.2d 11, 27 Ill.Dec. 742, 389 N.E.2d 1150 (1979); Lindahl v. Howe, 345 N.W.2d 548 (Iowa 1984); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hinkel, 87 Nev. 478, 488 P.2d 1151 (1971).
Other jurisdictions have upheld the exclusion. See Holcomb v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 254 Ark. 514, 495 S.W.2d 155 (1973); Shipley v. American Standard Insurance Co., 183 Neb. 109, 158 N.W.2d 238 (1968); Beaupre v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 736 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.App.1987); Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 471 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind.App.1984); Simmons v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 65 Ohio App.2d 28, 414 N.E.2d 440 (1979).
In those jurisdictions invalidating the exclusion, a primary concern is that it conflicts with the purpose for uninsured motorist insurance, which is to provide the same degree of protection to an insured as he would have received from a financially responsible tortfeasor. See, e.g., Jacobson v. Implement Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 196 Mont. 542, 640 P.2d 908 (1982). The exclusion is therefore viewed as a restriction on the intended scope of uninsured motorist coverage which ordinarily applies regardless of whether the insured is injured in an insured vehicle, an unowned vehicle, or on foot. See, e.g., Calvert v. Farmers Insurance Co., 144 Ariz. 291, 697 P.2d 684 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shepherd v. Fregozo
...motorist statutes. See Dullenty v. Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co., 111 Idaho 98, 721 P.2d 198 (1986). Williams-Diehl v. State Farm, 793 P.2d 587, 589-90 (Colo.App.1989). In 1995, the Supreme Court of Colorado reiterated its view that the Colorado uninsured motorist statutes provided for......
-
Clampit v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 91-285
...Nationwide Mutual v. Hampton, supra; Union Insurance Co. v. Stanage, 454 N.W.2d 736 (S.D.1990); Williams-Diehl v. State Farm; 793 P.2d 587 (Colo.App.1989); Deel v. Sweeney, 181 W.Va. 460, 383 S.E.2d 92 (1989); Kluiter v. State, supra; Clark v. State Farm, 743 P.2d 1227 (Utah 1987); Dullenty......
-
Terranova v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...motorist coverage does not grant uninsured vehicle coverage to LeCavalier and is not ambiguous. See Williams-Diehl v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 793 P.2d 587 (Colo.App.1989) (household exclusion valid and enforceable); Arguello v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 42 Colo.App. 372, 374, 599 ......
-
Mavashev v. Windsor Ins. Co., 02CA1244.
...driver); Keely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 835 P.2d 584 (Colo.App.1992)(snowmobile exclusion); Williams-Diehl v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 793 P.2d 587 (Colo.App.1989)(owned-but-uninsured A term in a policy may be void and unenforceable "if it violates public policy by attempting to `dilute, co......
-
When an Automobile Policy Coverage Exclusion or Limitation Is Valid
...(Colo. 1974). 3. 1983 Colo. Sess. Laws 454. 4. CRS § 10-4-701 et seq. 5. CRS § 10-4-610. 6. Williams-Diehl v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 793 P.2d 587 (Colo.App. 1989). 7. Terranova, supra, note 2; Barba v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., 759 P.2d 750 (Colo. App. 1988); Allstate Insurance Co. ......