Mercury Insurance v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.

*44 Opinion

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company (Mercury) appeals from judgments entered after the court granted summary judgments in favor of defendants Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles (Enterprise) and California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). Plaintiff sought to recover payment from defendants of the uninsured motorist (UM) bodily injury benefits it had paid to its insured. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Synopsis

I. Underlying Action

Mercury is an insurance carrier which offers and sells to members of the general public automobile liability insurance policies which meet the requirements of Insurance Code sections 1 11580.1 and 11580.2. Mercury issued such a policy (the Policy) to Koji Okamoto for the period February 4, 1993, to August 4, 1993. The Policy provided UM coverage limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident for the benefit of the insureds of the Policy. Koji’s son, Mamoru Gary Okamoto (Okamoto), qualified as an insured under the Policy.

Enterprise is a corporation authorized to do business in California for, among other things, the short-term rental of automobiles to the general public. As owner of the vehicles it rents,…

I respectfully dissent.

I would agree with the majority’s analysis, reluctantly, were this truly an “undeñasmed. motorist” case. 1 But this case raises a novel issue, which in my view, when properly resolved leads to the conclusion this is an “uninsured motorist” case. The implications of this difference are both obvious *54 and profound. What is that novel issue? When a vehicle owner who has elected to post a cash deposit in lieu of insurance refuses a tender of defense, claims to be “permissibly uninsured” (not underinsured) and that the uninsured driver is liable for the vehicle owner’s share as well as his own share of the injured person’s damages, is that the equivalent of an insurance company “refusing to admit coverage” or only admitting coverage “conditionally or with reservation”? Or, alternatively, is it the substantial equivalent of a company which had written a bond in lieu of insurance “denying] coverage thereunder or refusing] to admit coverage thereunder except conditionally or with reservation”?

If so, that would bring this case squarely within the definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle” in Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (b). This definition reads…

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company ("Mercury") appeals from judgments entered after the court granted summary judgments in favor of defendants Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles ("Enterprise") and California Insurance Guarantee Association ("CIGA"). Plaintiff sought to recover payment from defendants of the uninsured motorist ("UM") bodily injury benefits it had paid to its insured. We affirm.

Mercury is an insurance carrier which offers and sells to members of the general public automobile liability insurance policies which meet the requirements of Insurance Code sections [1] 11580.1 and 11580.2. Mercury issued such a policy ("the Policy") to Koji Okamoto for the period February 4, 1993, to August 4, 1993. The Policy provided UM coverage limits of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident for the benefit of the insureds of the Policy. Koji's son, Mamoru Gary Okamoto ("Okamoto"), qualified as an insured under the Policy.

Enterprise is a corporation authorized to do business in California for, among other things, the short-term rental of automobiles to the general public. As owner of the vehicles it rents, Enterprise complies with California's financial…