Smith v. Royal Insurance of America

Opinion

FRANSON, Acting P. J.

Statement of the Case

Appellant Laura Smith seeks to establish coverage under an uninsured motorist clause contained in an automobile bodily injury liability policy issued by respondent Royal Insurance Company of America. The case came

[241]

to trial before the court on stipulated facts, the only question being one of law. The court entered judgment in favor of respondent. We affirm.

Statement of the Facts

On August 12, 1983, the date of the accident giving rise to this litigation, appellant resided with her husband James Smith in Firebaugh. James had an automobile personal injury liability policy with respondent. Appellant was an insured under the policy. The policy contained an uninsured motorist clause with single limits of $50,000.

At the time of the accident, James was driving an automobile registered to Manuel Pacheco. Appellant’s parents, Connie and Louie Cruz, were passengers in the automobile. The automobile collided with an uninsured vehicle, resulting in the death of Louie Cruz and injuries to Connie Cruz.

Pacheco’s automobile insurance policy paid $15,000 on its uninsured motorist clause to the heirs of Louie Cruz. Appellant received $1,000 of this money. Louie Cruz also had an automobile insurance policy with uninsured motorist coverage. That policy paid $50,000 for Connie Cruz’s injuries and Louie Cruz’s death. Louie Cruz’s heirs, including appellant, assigned their interest in this policy to their mother, Connie Cruz. Respondent was not the insurer on either Cruz’s or Pacheco’s policy.

Pacheco’s car was not an automobile described in James Smith’s policy. The Cruzes did not reside with James Smith and appellant, and were not insured under their policy.

Discussion

Insurance Code section 11580.2 does not require that appellant recover damages for the wrongful death of her father.

The recovery sought by appellant is not provided for in the uninsured motorist section of her insurance policy. That section provides only for recovery for bodily injury “ [sustained by a covered person”; since appellant was not injured in the accident, she does not come within the policy definition.