 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Allstate Insurance Company6/20/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Kapelke and Roy, JJ., concur
In this declaratory judgment action seeking interpretation of a motor vehicle insurance policy, plaintiffs, Anacleto and Donna Gonzales, appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, Allstate Insurance Company. We affirm.
Plaintiffs were injured in a collision in Mexico and were insured by defendant under a policy restricting coverage to automobile accidents occurring in the United States, its territories or possessions, Puerto Rico, and Canada. Plaintiffs filed personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims, which defendant denied on the ground that the policy did not cover injuries resulting from a collision in Mexico.
On defendant's motion, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant, ruling that there was no coverage for plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appeal. Our review is de novo. See Martini v. Smith, 42 P.3d 629 (Colo. 2002).
I.
As it pertains to PIP coverage, § 10-4-707(1), C.R.S. 2001, of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (the No-Fault Act) states:
The coverages described in [the PIP coverages statute, § 10-4-706] shall be applicable to:
(a) Accidental bodily injury sustained by the named insured when injured in an accident involving any motor vehicle, regardless of whether the accident occurs in this state or in any other jurisdiction .
(b) Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the named insured under the circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) .
(c) Accidental bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring within this state sustained by any other person while occupying the described motor vehicle with the consent of the insured or while a pedestrian if injured in an accident involving the described motor vehicle. (Emphases added.)
Section 10-4-711(3), C.R.S. 2001, of the No-Fault Act states:
Notwithstanding any of its other terms and conditions, every complying policy shall afford coverages at least as extensive as the minimum coverages required by operation of sections 10-4-706 and 10-4-707, during such periods of time as the insured motor vehicle is operated in other jurisdictions of the United States, its territories or possessions, and the provinces of Canada, as the statutes, laws, or administrative regulations of such other jurisdictions require with respect to liability, or financial responsibility, and direct benefit, or first party coverages for operators, occupants, and persons involved in accidents arising out of use or operation of motor vehicles within such other jurisdictions. (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiffs contend that the language "any other jurisdiction" in § 10-4-707(1)(a) renders the policy's territorial restriction on PIP benefits void. Plaintiffs agree that the policy does not include coverage for accidents occurring in Mexico. They contend, however, that this territorial limitation is void because it does not comply with the statute. See Murphy v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 747 P.2d 691 (Colo. App. 1987)(in a policy providing PIP benefits, any provision inconsistent with the requirements of the No-Fault Act is void). Defendant, in contrast, argues that § 10-4-711(3) provides the required territorial coverage for PIP benefits, and, because the policy's territorial restriction is consistent with that section, it is valid. We agree with defendant.
The goal in interpreting any statute is to determine and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly by looking first to the language of the statute itself. A statute should be "const
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|