Messinger

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Messinger

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 821·232 Cal. App. 3d 508·283 Cal. Rptr. 493·91 Daily Journal DAR 8765·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5731
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1991C008817California5,167 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

Introduction

In this insurance coverage dispute, George and Diana Messinger (the Messingers) appeal from a summary judgment in favor of State Farm. This dispute arose out of a two-car collision after the Messingers sought to recover under their automobile underinsurance policy with State Farm payment of damages not covered by the tortfeasor’s liability policy. The Messingers alleged that the tortfeasor was underinsured as defined in their insurance policy and that they were each entitled to the full coverage under the policy minus the amounts already paid by the tortfeasor. State Farm denied their underinsurance claim. On appeal, the Messingers contend there are two triable issues of fact: (1) whether the tortfeasor was underinsured as defined in both State Farm’s policy and the proper subdivisions of Insurance Code section 11580.2; and (2) whether State Farm’s denial of underinsurance coverage violated the liability coverage requirements of Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (a)(1). (Further references to undesignated sections are to the Insurance Code.) We affirm the summary judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

On November 2, 1986, Georgette Sehn and…

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.