 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kline v. American States Insurance Co.3/7/1996
This is a proceeding to determine the amount of underinsured motorist coverage available under two separate insurance policies. Defendant, American States Insurance Co., appeals from a summary judgment in favor of its policy holders, plaintiffs, Logan Kline and Robin Temple. We affirm.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs are the divorced parents of a minor child killed when he was struck by an automobile. Prior to his death, plaintiffs shared joint custody of their son, and he spent approximately one-half of his time in each parent's home.
Prior to the fatal accident, each plaintiff had purchased an identical automobile insurance policy from defendant. Each policy provided underinsured motorist coverage of up to $100,000. Plaintiffs' son was insured under each policy as a family member.
The driver of the automobile was insured for $100,000 in liability coverage. Following the accident, the driver's insurance company paid $50,000 to each plaintiff.
Plaintiffs then filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of the coverage available under their policies. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined that each plaintiff would be entitled to recover up to $75,000. This amount, when combined with the $100,000 received from the automobile driver's insurance, equals the maximum recovery of $250,000 permitted for wrongful death by § 13-21-203, C.R.S. (1995 Cum. Supp.). However, the issue of the amount of damages actually sustained by each plaintiff has not yet been determined pursuant to the arbitration proceeding required in the policies.
I
Defendant contends that the trial court erred for various reasons in determining that there was any coverage available under the underinsured motorist provisions of plaintiffs' policies. We find no merit in any of the allegations of error.
A
Plaintiffs' policies each provide coverage of up to $100,000 for damages arising from an accident involving an "underinsured" motor vehicle. The parties agree that the somewhat confusing language of the policy was intended to track the applicable provision of § 10-4-609(4), C.R.S. (1994 Repl. Vol. 4A) which provides:
(1) [Uninsured] motorist coverage shall include coverage for . . . death which an insured is legally entitled to collect from the . . . driver of an underinsured motor vehicle. An underinsured motor vehicle is a . . . vehicle, the ownership, maintenance or use of which is insured for . . . death at the time of the accident, but the limits of liability for . . . death under such insurance . . . are:
(a) Less than the limits for [underinsured] motorist coverage under the insured's policy or
(b) Reduced by payments to persons other than an insured [injured] in the accident to less than the limits of the [underinsured] motorist coverage under the insured's policy.
Defendant first asserts that because plaintiffs' son was the only "insured" injured in the accident, the automobile driver's $100,000 liability payment must be deemed to equal the underinsured coverage limit of $100,000 in each of plaintiffs' policies. In support of this contention, defendant argues that the claim of each plaintiff is derivative from and based upon the death of their son. However, we agree with the trial court's analysis.
Subject to exceptions not applicable here, in construing a statute, we must apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used. See Fogg v. Macaluso, 892 P.2d 271 (Colo. 1995). We conclude that application of this rule of construction requires a d
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|