 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rones v. Safeco Insurance Co.9/10/1992
ions. One might say that liability insurance protects the insured against the monetary consequences of as much of his own tortious conduct as is addressed in the policy.
1 R. Long, Liability Insurance § 1.01 (1991). For this reason, it is often referred to as "third party" insurance. 1 R. Long § 1.01 . As such, liability coverage stands in contrast to so-called "first party" coverage -- the type involved in Barcom. Whereas first party UIM coverage directly indemnifies against the insured's losses caused by the negligence of another, liability coverage indemnifies an insured against losses to another caused by the insured's own negligence.
The intended scope of liability coverage does not change simply because the injured party happens to be the policy's named insured. In the current case, Carlson, as the driver of Rones' car, assumed a position normally occupied by the insured herself. Rones was the party injured by Carlson's negligence. At this point, liability coverage for Rones' injuries was available. However, the availability of this coverage did not rest on Rones' status as the named insured, but rather through the negligence of a covered person, Carlson. Her privity with the insurance company was not relevant for the purposes of liability coverage. In
contrast with the first party coverage analyzed in Barcom, any obligation Safeco had to Rones did not stem from its contractual relationship with her, but from Carlson's tortious act.
The second Barcom inquiry, whether any contractual language displaces the applicable statute of limitation, also supports application of the 3-year tort limitations period. The well-established rule for this stage of the inquiry is "that absent an agreement expressly displacing existing law, the statute provided by the Legislature will pertain." Barcom, 112 Wash. 2d at 579. Here, there is no language giving a named insured special rights over other third party victims. Therefore, the applicable 3-year statute remains in place.
Because Rones' liability claim is time barred, it is unnecessary to determine whether Rones could bring a direct action against Safeco, or if she is able to recover under the terms of the liability policy. Likewise, we decline to consider issues of coverage under the UIM portion of the policy and whether Safeco is estopped from claiming the 3-year statute of limitation. These issues were not raised at the trial level. As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue which was neither presented to nor considered by the trial court. R/L Assocs., Inc. v. Seattle, 113 Wash. 2d 402, 412, 780 P.2d 838 (1989).
We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Disposition
Holding that the action was governed by the 3-year limitation period for torts, the court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.
|