Pettis

California Casualtly Indemnity Exchange v. Pettis

Good Law
193 Cal. App. 3d 1597·239 Cal. Rptr. 205
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 11, 1987C000188California5,629 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sparks, J.

The question in this case is whether uninsured motorist benefits may be combined or “stacked” to satisfy the total damages alleged to have been incurred by the insureds. We are called upon to resolve a conflict of laws question and to construe out-of-state insurance clauses of California automobile liability policies for an accident in Hawaii. We conclude that California law governs and that the insureds are not entitled under their policies to stack the uninsured motorists coverage.

Plaintiff California Casualty Indemnity Exchange (California Casualty) is a California corporation engaged in the business of insuring automobiles. Defendants Lauren and Patricia Pettis and Charles and Linda Swimley are California residents who separately purchased policies of automobile insurance from California Casualty. While driving a rental car in Hawaii on a joint vacation the defendants were all involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist. Defendants seek to apply Hawaiian law in order to make claims against their uninsured motorist coverage in excess of the policy limits stated in their policies and approved by California law. In this declaratory relief action the trial court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.