 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spaur v. Allstate Insurance Co.12/12/1996
Opinion by JUDGE DAVIDSON
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, which determined that plaintiff, Richard E. Spaur, was not entitled to payment for his loss of consortium claim under his uninsured motorist policy. The issue presented is whether the provision of the policy which aggregates derivative claims with the claims of the person primarily injured is ambiguous or in violation either of public policy or the rule of reasonable expectations. We hold that the provision is both unambiguous and valid. Thus, we affirm.
The facts are not disputed. Plaintiff's wife was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff was not in the car or near the site of the accident. Plaintiff and his wife were insured under a policy issued by defendant which provided, as pertinent here, uninsured motorist coverage with $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident limits. Defendant paid plaintiff's wife the per person policy limit of $25,000.
Plaintiff sought payment of $25,000 for loss of consortium as a result of his wife's injuries. Defendant denied payment on the ground that, under the policy, plaintiff's wife had been paid the per person policy limit of $25,000 and plaintiff's claim was subject to that limit. Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, contending that the policy language was ambiguous, contrary to public policy, and contrary to the rule of reasonable expectations. The trial court disagreed, and plaintiff filed this appeal.
The policy limits uninsured motorist coverage as follows:
Limits of Liability
The Uninsured Motorists Coverage for Bodily Injury limit stated on the declarations page is the maximum amount payable for this coverage by this policy for any one accident.
This means the insuring of more than one auto for other coverages will not increase our limit of liability beyond the amount shown in the declarations.
Regardless of the number of insured autos under this coverage, the specific amount shown on the declarations is the maximum that we will pay under this coverage for:
1. 'each person' for damages arising out of bodily injury to any one person in any one motor vehicle accident, including damages sustained by anyone else as a result of that injury.
2. 'each accident' for damages arising out of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one motor vehicle accident. This 'each accident' limit is subject to the 'each person' limit. (emphasis supplied)
The policy defines "bodily injury " to mean "bodily injury, sickness, disease or death."
A.
Plaintiff first contends that the "each person" provision of the policy is ambiguous and, thus, must be read to provide separate and independent per person coverage for his loss of consortium claim. We disagree.
When the language of an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, it must be upheld as written. Courts may neither rewrite an unambiguous policy nor force a strained construction in order to resolve it against the insurer. Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 788 P.2d 748 (Colo. 1990).
By its plain language, the policy provides that payment up to the per person coverage limit, here $25,000, will be made to "each person" who has sustained damages arising out of his or her bodily injury. The "each person" limit is unambiguously set forth as the total limit for all damages arising out of bodily injury to one person in any one motor vehicle accident. Clearly included within the damages to the injured person
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|