 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems9/5/1996
908 P.2d 1170 (Colo.App.1995) (cert. granted Jan. 8, 1996).
Here, Budget does not dispute that it was an insurer with respect to its rental agreement with the driver of the car and that the agreement constitutes an insurance policy for purposes of § 10-11-710(2)(a). See Passamano v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 882 P.2d 131.2 (Colo.1994). Further, Budget does not deny that it failed to offer the driver unlimited PIP and loss of income benefits pursuant to § 10-4-710(2)(a). It contends, however, that the trial court erred in reforming the rental agreement to incorporate this coverage because the contracting parties intended to include only basic, minimal benefits. Relying on an affidavit of the driver, obtained after this action was filed, Budget asserts that the driver, as the primary insured, would have refused the supplemental of the No-Fault Act and, thus, § 10--4--710, C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol 4A) was inapplicable. The case did not involve an insurer's failure to offer additional no-fault coverage and therefore sheds little, if any, light on the issue before us.
We also disagree with Budget's assertion that Passamano v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra, and other cases relied upon by plaintiffs are distinguishable because uninsured motorist coverage and no-fault insurance serve different purposes.
The purpose of the uninsured motorist coverage is to compensate insureds for losses caused by negligent and financially irresponsible motorists. Briggs v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 833 P.2d 859 (Colo. App.1992). Similarly, the General Assembly enacted the No Fault Act in order to "avoid inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents." Section 10-4-702, C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol. 4A).
Given that the purpose of both statutes is to ensure adequate compensation for persons injured in car accidents, we reject defendant's contention that reformation of a contract to add the additional coverage is inappropriate when an insurer fails to offer no-fault coverage, as opposed to uninsured motorist coverage.
We thus find no error in the trial court's reformation of the rental agreement to include PIP medical and loss of income benefits without dollar or time limitation.
IV.
Finally, Budget contends that the trial court erred in not placing a $200,000 cap on Budget's total obligation, pursuant to § 10 4 710(2)(b), C.R.S. (1994 Rep. Vol. 4A). Again, we disagree.
Section 10 4 710(2)(b) provides, in pertinent part:
A complying policy may provide that all benefits set forth in section 10-4-706(1)(b) to (1)(e) and in this section are subject to an aggregate limit of two hundred thousand dollars payable on account of injury to or death of any one person as a result of any one accident arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle.
Here, Budget could have included in its rental agreement a provision for a $200,000 cap for all benefits. It did not do so, however, and therefore, plaintiffs' benefits are not subject to such a limitation. Accordingly, the trial court correctly ruled that the $200,000 cap did not apply.
The judgment is affirmed.
HUME and ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur.
|