Lopez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

California Court of Appeal Apr 19, 1967 No. Civ. 23614Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an insurer cannot exclude a resident relative from uninsured motorist coverage based on their ownership of an automobile because the statute mandates broader coverage, but the policy's $10,000 limit for bodily injury to one person applies to wrongful death claims. Additionally, the court held that the policy's medical payment exclusion for relatives who own automobiles is valid because such coverage is not mandated by statute.

Issues

Whether a policy provision excluding resident relatives who own automobiles from uninsured motorist coverage is valid under California law.
Whether the $10,000 or $20,000 policy limit applies to wrongful death claims arising from the death of one person.
Whether the policy's medical payment exclusion for relatives who own automobiles is enforceable.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It follows that the policy provision excluding from such coverage a family member who owns an automobile cannot prevail.”

“The statute is clear, and must prevail over a more restrictive policv provision.”

DRAPER, P. J.

Rosalie Lopez, a minor, lived in the same household with her parents. She owned an automobile which she insured with defendant. The policy, as required by law (Ins. Code, § 11580.2), provided uninsured motorist coverage. Pedro Lopez, Rosalie’s father, owned an automobile on which he had no insurance. On August 4, 1963, Pedro, while on foot, was struck by another uninsured automobile. He sustained injuries which caused his death. His widow and children joined as plaintiffs in this action seeking declaration that they are entitled to recovery from the insurer of Rosalie ’s car for the wrongful death of Pedro. The trial court held that (1) Pedro was an insured under Rosalie’s policy, and thus his heirs may recover upon it in a wrongful death action; (2) each of the heirs suffered an injury by the death of Pedro, and the coverage limit thus is $20,000 rather than $10,000; (3) the medical pay provision of Rosalie’s policy requires payment of medical and funeral expenses. Defendant appeals.

The policy extends uninsured motorist coverage to relatives of the named insured, and defines that term to mean “a relative of the named insured or of his spouse, who is a resident of the same household, provided neither such relative nor his spouse owns a private passenger automobile.” Since Pedro owned an automobile, this clause would exclude him from protection against an uninsured motorist.

But the insurer’s obligation is fixed by statute (Ins. Code,

[212]

§ 11580.2). As in effect at the date of this policy and of the accident, it required that every automobile liability policy cover the insured or his legal representative for sums they are entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle as damages for bodily injury or death. “[T]he term ‘insured’ means the named insured and the spouse of the named insured and relatives of either while residents of the same household while occupants of a motor vehicle or otherwise. ...” (Subd. (b).)

The statute expresses the public policy of this state requiring uninsured motorist coverage. Such coverage may be omitted from a policy only upon written agreement of insured and insurer, and mere acceptance of a liability policy with terms more restrictive than the statute is not to be deemed a waiver of the statutory coverage (Mission

Lopez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief