State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Progressive Marathon Ins.

Good Law
148 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 286·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2007CIV.A. 1253California2,975 words

Opinion

Opinion

THE COURT. [*]

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, appellant, and Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, respondent, filed cross-summary-judgment motions on stipulated facts concerning the parties' respective obligations under automobile liability insurance policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to Progressive. The appeal presents purely a question of law, namely, whether Insurance Code section 11580.9, subdivision (d) governs the parties' allocation of responsibility for uninsured motorist coverage. We conclude that, while the statute does encompass uninsured motorist coverage, the trial court correctly ruled it did not apply in this case, and we affirm.

Julie Deam was injured when a Volkswagen Jetta in which she was riding was hit by an uninsured motorist (UM). The Jetta, owned by Tanya Schafer and driven with Ms. Schafer's permission by Melissa Jaime, was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by respondent, Progressive Marathon Insurance Company. The policy provided coverage to passengers like Ms. Deam who were injured as a result of the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle. [1] Progressive's UM policy limits are $15,000/$30,000.

Ms.…

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.