 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arredondo v. Avis Rent a Car System3/27/2001
ai Walston, Ortrud Walston, Avis, and Continental. The complaint included allegations of negligence, negligence per se, and recklessness. The Arredondos also sought a judgment declaring that the Continental policy provided liability insurance coverage for Kai Walston in this case. The Arredondos filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the declaratory judgment issue, arguing that, although Kai Walston was not covered by the terms of the Continental policy, Utah law required that policy to cover him to the same extent as the named insured because he was a blood relative of the named insured and lived in her household. Avis and Continental filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, contending that Utah law only demanded such coverage from policies purchased to satisfy the statutory security requirement and that, in this case, only the Pathfinder policy was purchased to meet that obligation. The trial court granted Avis and Continental's cross-motion and dismissed Continental from the case, as it was not a party to any of the Arredondos' other claims. The court then directed entry of final judgment on the issue under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The Arredondos appeal the trial court's entry of partial summary judgment and subsequent dismissal of Continental as a party.
DISCUSSION
A trial court may properly grant a motion for summary judgment only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review the trial court's summary judgment ruling for correctness. Price Dev. Co. v. Orem City, 2000 UT 26, 9, 995 P.2d 1237.
The Continental policy does not provide coverage to Kai Walston under its own terms, and the parties do not argue otherwise. The issue before us is whether Utah law nevertheless requires the Continental policy to cover Kai Walston.
At the time of the accident, the Utah Code provided, "A rental company shall provide its renters with primary coverage meeting the requirements of Title 41, Chapter 12a, Financial Responsibility of Motor Vehicle Owners and Operators Act." Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-314 (1994). Title 41, Chapter 12a required, in pertinent part, that "every resident owner of a motor vehicle shall maintain owner's or operator's security in effect . . . at any time that the motor vehicle is operated on a highway within the state." Utah Code Ann. § 41-12a-301(2)(a) (Supp. 1995). "Owner's or operator's security" was defined, inter alia, as "an insurance policy or combination of policies conforming to Section 31A-22-302" of the Utah Code. Utah Code Ann. § 41-12a-103(9) (1993). Section 31A-22-302 provided, in relevant part, as follows:
(2) Every policy of insurance or combination of policies purchased to satisfy the owner's or operator's security requirement of Section 41-12a-301 shall include:
(a) motor vehicle liability coverage under Sections 31A-22-303 and 31A-22-304;
(b) uninsured motorist coverage under Section 31A-22-305, unless affirmatively waived under Subsection 31A-22-305(4); and
(c) underinsured motorist coverage under Section 31A-22-305, unless affirmatively waived under Subsection 31A-22-305(8)(c).
(3) Every policy of insurance or combination of policies, purchased to satisfy the owner's or operator's security requirement of Section 41-12a-301 . . . shall also include personal injury protection under Sections 31A-22-306 through 31A-22-309. Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-302(1)-(2) (1994).
The A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|