Chong v. California State Automobile Assn.

[287]

Opinion

DOSSEE, J.

In this declaratory relief action, a policyholder sought a declaration that the uninsured motorist provisions of her automobile liability insurance policy provide coverage for injuries she sustained as a pedestrian from a collision with a bicyclist. The only question for our review is whether a bicycle qualifies as a “motor vehicle.” We conclude it does not, and we affirm the judgment in favor of the insurer.

Facts

The facts are undisputed: Plaintiff was walking across Mission Street in San Francisco in a designated crosswalk on a green light when she was struck by a bicycle, which was traveling on Mission Street through the red light. Plaintiff was knocked to the ground and injured. As the bicycle rider was uninsured, plaintiff submitted a claim to her own automobile liability insurance carrier, California State Automobile Association (CSAA). Plaintiff’s policy provides uninsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained in an accident arising from the “ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.”

CSAA moved for summary judgment on the ground that a bicycle is not a “motor vehicle.” The trial court agreed and granted the motion. Judgment was entered in favor of CSAA. Plaintiff now appeals.

Discussion

The Policy

We begin our analysis with the “bedrock” rule of insurance policy interpretation: words in an insurance policy are to be interpreted as a layperson would interpret them, in their “ordinary and popular sense.” (Civ. Code, § 1644;

Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.

v.

Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.

(1993) 5 Cal.4th 854, 867 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 691, 855 P.2d 1263];

AIU Ins. Co.

v.

Superior Court