 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company12/26/1997
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Metzger and Plank, JJ., concur
In this action for breach of an insurance contract, bad faith breach of an insurance contract, and outrageous conduct, plaintiffs, Kurt Christian and Anne Dicken, appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm). We affirm. In 1987, Christian attended an office Christmas party and became intoxicated. When he left, instead of getting into his own vehicle, a 1976 Chevrolet pickup truck, he drove off in a 1988 Chevrolet pickup truck owned by Green Bit & Tool, Inc. (Green Bit) without the consent of the driver of that pickup. The driver, an employee of Green Bit, was making a delivery at the time and had left the keys to his employers truck in the ignition. Shortly thereafter, Christian was involved in an accident with Dicken, who sustained injuries. In prior litigation, Dicken obtained a default judgment against Christian, who subsequently sought liability coverage for the accident under a policy issued by State Farm on his own truck. State Farm denied coverage, asserting that the policy excluded coverage for accidents involving non-owned vehicles driven without the permission of the owner. Christian and Dicken then joined in instituting this action against State Farm. Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment because there are disputed issues of fact as to State Farm's obligation to defend Christian and to provide benefits to Dicken. We disagree. The policy in question provides in relevant part that: "The liability coverage extends to the use, by an insured, of a . . . non-owned car." (emphasis in original) "Non-owned car" is defined in the policy as a car not:
1. owned by,
2. registered in the name of, or
3. furnished or available for the regular or frequent use of: you, your spouse or any relatives.
The use has to be within the scope of consent of the owner or person in lawful possession of it.
(emphasis added) Plaintiffs contend that this provision violates public policy by diluting coverage required by the Colorado Automobile Accident Reparations Act (No-fault Act), Sections10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S. 1997. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that State Farm must provide coverage for Christian if he had a good faith belief that he was legally entitled to operate or use the Green Bit truck. Plaintiffs further argue that because there is a disputed issue of material fact as to this issue, summary judgment is improper. We are not persuaded. The purpose of the No-fault Act is to avoid inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents and to require Colorado registrants to procure automobile insurance coverage. Section 10-4-702, C.R.S. 1997. To effect its purpose, the No-fault Act requires every automobile owner to acquire a "complying policy" that provides the amount of coverage mandated by the Act. Section 10-4-705, C.R.S. 1997. Thus, the No-fault Act requires that all owners of motor vehicles obtain insurance, not necessarily that all drivers must be insured. See Scoggins v. Unigard Insurance Co., 869 P.2d 202 (Colo. 1994). An insurer may impose any terms and conditions consistent with public policy as it sees fit. Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 788 P.2d 748 (Colo. 1990). However, any terms or provisions of an insurance contract that attempt to dilute, condition, or limit statutorily mandated coverage violate public policy. See Terranova v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 800 P.2d 58 (Colo. 1990). The No-fault Act includes two distinct types of insurance benefits, personal injury protection (PIP) coverage which is
Page 1 2 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|