 |
 |
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
payable without regard to fault, and liability coverage. Scoggins v. Unigard Insurance Co., supra. PIP coverage is not at issue in this case. While the No-fault Act was intended to avoid inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents, the General Assembly did not intend that the category of individuals covered under the Act would be unlimited. In fact, the General Assembly contemplated that insurers could design policies that efficiently and effectively provide coverage under the No-fault Act, as long as such policies do not dilute the coverage mandated by Sections10-4-706 and 10-4-707, C.R.S. 1997. McConnell v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 906 P.2d 109 (Colo. 1995); Section10-4-712(1), C.R.S. 1997. We find nothing in the Act that would require an insurer to provide liability coverage to a policy holder when driving a non-owned vehicle without the consent of the owner. Plaintiffs' reliance on Section10-4-712(2), C.R.S. 1997, is misplaced. That section provides in relevant part that:
The coverages described in section 10-4-706 may also be subject to exclusions where the injured person:
(b) Is operating a motor vehicle as a converter without a good faith belief that he is legally entitled to operate or use such vehicle.
Contrary to plaintiffs contention, liability coverage here is not contingent upon whether Christian had a good faith belief that he was operating his own vehicle. Section 10-4-712(2) does not provide that all individuals must be covered unless excluded. As the supreme court noted in McConnell v. State Farm Fire & Marine Insurance Co., supra, Section10-4-712(1), C.R.S. 1997, authorizes insurers to subject the coverage described in Section10-4-706 to any conditions or exclusions that are not inconsistent with the No-Fault Act, and Section10-4-712(2) merely provides examples of permissible exclusions. Consequently, Section10-4-712(2) does not require that coverage must be provided to individuals operating a vehicle with a good faith belief that they are legally entitled to operate or use such vehicle. Accordingly, we hold that, consistent with the No-Fault Act, an insurer may limit coverage to the use by an insured of a non-owned car, the use of which is within the scope of consent of the owner or person in lawful possession of it. Thus, the insurance provision before us does not violate the No-fault Act. Consequently, under the facts at issue, policy coverage did not extend to Christian and plaintiffs' claims for relief were not sustainable.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE METZGER and JUDGE PLANK concur.
|