Ortiz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. CA5

Filed 7/15/14 Ortiz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

NICHOLAS ORTIZ, F067121 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 11CECG01936) v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE OPINION INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Judge. Perez, Williams, Medina & Rodriguez and Eric V. Grijalva for Plaintiff and Appellant. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Todd W. Baxter and Dana B. Denno for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Poochigian, J.

This appeal arises from a dispute regarding insurance coverage following a motor vehicle accident. Appellant Nicholas Ortiz filed a complaint for declaratory relief claiming that he was entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under a policy issued by respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), to appellant’s employer. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The trial court concluded that the workers’ compensation benefits appellant received offset the underinsured motorist benefits available to appellant under the State Farm policy. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Appellant was injured while in the course and scope of his employment when a vehicle driven by Choi Seok Hwan collided with appellant’s vehicle. Hwan’s insurance policy had an available per person limit of $15,000 and appellant settled his liability claim for that amount. Appellant also received approximately $107,000 in workers’ compensation benefits. Appellant made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policy. This policy has underinsured motorist limits of $100,000. State Farm denied appellant’s claim based on the following offset in the policy’s underinsured motorist coverage:

“Any amount payable under this coverage shall be reduced by any amount paid or payable to or for the insured: