 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Allstate Insurance Company6/20/2002
mits all UM/UIM coverage to accidents occurring in the United States, its territories or possessions, Puerto Rico, and Canada. However, unlike their argument as to the policy's PIP provisions, plaintiffs do not assert any statutory requirement that UM/UIM coverage be applicable to accidents occurring in Mexico. They suggest, nevertheless, that to permit such territorial restriction of UM/UIM coverage would violate Colorado's public policy. We disagree.
It is undisputed that the public policy underlying UM/UIM protection in Colorado is to assure that a person injured by an uninsured motorist is compensated to the same extent as one injured by a motorist who is insured in compliance with the law. Thus, to satisfy such policy requirements, an insurer need only offer UM/UIM coverage that is at least as extensive as the insurance policy's liability coverage. DeHerrera v. Sentry Ins. Co., 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001); Alliance Mut. Cas. Co. v. Duerson, 184 Colo. 117, 518 P.2d 1177 (1974); see § 10-4-609(1)(a), C.R.S. 2001 (describing UM/UIM protection).
Under the No-Fault Act, the territorial requirements for liability coverage are identical to the PIP requirements, which, as discussed, include only the United States, its territories or possessions, and Canada. See §§ 10-4-706(1)(a), 10-4-711(3), C.R.S. 2001. Thus, because § 10-4-711(3) does not require that a liability policy cover an accident that occurs in Mexico, there is no corollary requirement that more extensive UM/UIM coverage be provided. See DeHerrera v. Sentry Ins. Co., supra.
Although their specific statutory provisions vary, the courts of an overwhelming number of other jurisdictions have held that similar territorial limitations do not violate public policy so long as they apply equally to statutorily mandated uninsured motorist and liability coverages. See Mijes v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 317 Ill. App. 3d 1097, 740 N.E.2d 1160 (2000)(listing cases); see also Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (D. Haw. 2001)(discussing impact on uninsured motorist rates); Curtis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 473 F. Supp. 315, 317 (E.D. La. 1979)("Insurers providing [uninsured motorist] coverage must base their rates on the risk that the insured will be struck by an uninsured vehicle. It is certainly rational to exclude countries where the number of uninsured motorists is unknown or so high as to make coverage impractical."), aff'd, 631 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1980).
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE KAPELKE and JUDGE ROY concur.
|