Dominguez

Appellant Lucia Lopez Dominguez (Dominguez), injured in an automobile accident, brought an action for declaratory relief challenging the enforceability of provisions in an automobile insurance policy limiting liability coverage for permissive users. She appeals an adverse judgment 1 in favor of respondent Financial Indemnity Company (FIC) following a bench trial. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the disputed policy provisions are sufficiently conspicuous, plain and clear and are enforceable. We therefore affirm.

*392 I. Background

The parties agree that the facts are undisputed. Most of the facts are taken from the parties’ written stipulation of facts and from a certified copy of the insurance policy at issue. 2 To the extent any additional factual findings by the trial court are not challenged on appeal, we accept the fact findings set forth in the trial court’s “Order After Hearing.” (See City of Merced v. American Motorists Ins. Co. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1322-1323 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ].)

On November 2, 2007, Dominguez was the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by Janet Ningju Qiu. At the time of the accident,…

I respectfully dissent.

Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1198 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 68 , 89 P.3d 381 ] (Haynes) is the leading California Supreme Court case on the interpretation of automobile insurance policy provisions limiting the coverage provided to permissive users of the insured vehicle. As the majority recognizes, Haynes held that such a coverage limitation is effective only if the applicable permissive user provision was not only conspicuous, 1 but also plain and clear. (Haynes, at p. 1211.) In construing the policy before it, Haynes determined that laymen do not “necessarily” understand the term “permissive user” unless it is further defined in the policy. (Ibid.) Haynes also *404 concluded that a statement that insurance coverage for permissive users is limited to that required by the “Financial Responsibility Law” is insufficient to notify the insured of the dollar limits resulting from that reduction in coverage. (Id. at p. 1205, citing Jauregui v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1547 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 21 ] (Jauregui).)

Haynes concluded its discussion of the plain and clear requirement with a footnote that frames the analysis in this case:…

Appellant Lucia Lopez Dominguez (Dominguez), injured in an automobile accident, brought an action for declaratory relief challenging the enforceability of provisions in an automobile insurance policy limiting liability coverage for permissive users. She appeals an adverse judgment [1] in favor of respondent Financial Indemnity Company (FIC) following a bench trial. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the disputed policy provisions are sufficiently conspicuous, plain and clear and are enforceable. We therefore affirm.

The parties agree that the facts are undisputed. Most of the facts are taken from the parties' written stipulation of facts and from a certified copy of the insurance policy at issue. [2] To the extent any additional factual findings by the trial court are not challenged on appeal, we accept the fact findings set forth in the trial court's "Order After Hearing." (See City of Merced v. American Motorists Ins. Co. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1316, 1322-1323 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ].)

On November 2, 2007, Dominguez was the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by Janet Ningju Qiu. At the time of the accident, the vehicle…