American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Carver

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 1969 No. Civ. 25274Published

Before: Taylor

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the term "policy period" in an insurance policy is not ambiguous and refers to the specific term for which the policy was issued, not a subsequent renewal period. Consequently, an insured who fails to notify the insurer of a newly acquired vehicle within the original policy period or the specified 30-day window is not entitled to coverage.

Issues

Whether the term "policy period" in a newly acquired automobile provision is ambiguous.
Whether an insured is entitled to coverage for a vehicle acquired before a policy renewal when notice was not provided until after the renewal and an accident occurred.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The reasonable interpretation of the term “policy period” is the particular period for which the policy is issued, and not the next period after renewal.”

“We do not think that under the circumstances of the instant case, there is any ambiguity in the use of the term “policy period,” and find the trial court’s interpretation of the term to include the next policy period June 18-December 18 strained”

TAYLOR, J.

American Motorists Insurance Company (hereafter insurer) appeals from that portion of a judgment declaring that it was bound to provide coverage to the insured, respondent Carver, who acquired a 1957 Dodge station wagon before renewing his policy, but neither reported the acquisition nor requested coverage until the occurrence of an accident several days'after the renewal. The only question on appeal is whether the trial court correctly concluded that the term “policy period,” as used in the “newly acquired automobile ’ ’ provision of the policy was ambiguous.

As Carver and the other respondents have failed to file a brief on this appeal, we can accept as true the statement of facts in the insurer’s opening brief and are under no duty to seek out points of law in support of the judgment. However, this does not mean that reversal is automatic since the burden remains on the insurer to show error and we must examine the points raised to see if reversal is merited (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 17(b) ;

Evans

Evans,

185 Cal.App.2d 566 [8 Cal.Rptr. 412]).

The insurer’s .brief sets forth the following facts: On December 13, 1964, the insurer issued to Carver liability policy No. MK 9792 on a 1963 Chevrolet truck, for a period of six months. The policy, defined an owned automobile as set forth, so far as pertinent, in the footnote below.

The policy expired on June 18, 1965, but could be renewed for successive policy periods of six months. On May 24, 1965, an agent of the insurer mailed Carver a renewal premium invoice indicating the expiration date and that the payment for the next six months period was due. Carver usually paid his insurance premium on the renewal date or shortly thereafter.

Carver acquired possession of the 1957 Dodge and the white registration slip from Whiteo Construction Company on May 15; on May 19, Carver received the pink certificate of ownership for the Dodge. At that time, the Dodge was not operable. The Dodge became operable on June 22, 1965, when respond

[795]

American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Carver

AI Brief

TAYLOR, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief