Patton

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Patton

Good Law
194 Cal. App. 3d 626·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 2075·239 Cal. Rptr. 750
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1987B025629California2,276 words

Opinion

Opinion

Roth, J.

On April 21, 1985, appellant Lanida Patton was involved in an automobile accident with Martha McCardell. At that time, appellant had automobile insurance issued by respondent State Farm. McCardell told Patton she (McCardell) was insured with Workmen’s Automobile Insurance Company.

Following the accident, appellant retained counsel who contacted Workmen’s. By a letter dated June 10, 1985, Workmen’s informed appellant’s counsel that McCardell’s coverage extended, in fact, only to remuneration for physical damage. This information was subsequently confirmed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Hence, as to appellant’s claim for personal injuries sustained as a result of the accident with McCardell, McCardell was an “uninsured motorist.” Appellant’s automobile policy issued by respondent State Farm included coverage for injuries caused by uninsured motorists.

On November 25, 1985, appellant’s counsel wrote to respondent State Farm. The letter noted McCardell was not insured and that appellant had incurred $4,529 in medical expenses. The letter concluded: “This information should enable you to evaluate this case and decide whether you wish to litigate it. We are ready to…

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.