Foster
California State Automobile Assn. v. Foster
Opinion
Opinion
Evans, J.
In this declaratory relief action defendant Foster appeals from a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff insurer, urging he was not an “owner” of the motor vehicle herein, and as a consequence, does not fall within a coverage exclusion contained in the uninsured motorist provision of a policy issued by plaintiff, The appeal presents one basic question: Is a person who parts with possession of a motor vehicle but retains registered title and an equitable interest, an owner within the meaning of a policy provision excluding from uninsured motorist coverage vehicles “owned” by an insured? Because the answer is yes, we shall affirm.
Each party moved for summary judgment but the material facts are common to both motions. We draw our own conclusions of law to determine whether summary judgment in favor of the insurer was proper. (Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1359 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 16 ].)
The policy in question, issued to Foster’s relatives residing in the same household, provided coverage for damages caused by an “uninsured motor vehicle,” but specifically excluded vehicles owned by the insured.