Haynes

Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Good Law
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747·95 Cal. App. 4th 588
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 1, 2002G028171California3,026 words

Opinion

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, Acting P.J.

Joshua Lee Haynes sued Farmers Insurance Exchange for declaratory relief. He contended that a provision in an automobile liability policy limiting coverage for permissive users should not be enforced because the clause is inconspicuous and vague. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining the limitation was enforceable. Although plaintiff initially filed a dismissal of the action with prejudice, he subsequently appealed the trial court's judgment for defendant. We reverse, concluding the dismissal was a nullity and the trial court erred in granting defendant's summary judgment motion.

Defendant issued an automobile liability insurance policy to William M. Gallahair. It covered Gallahair, his family, and "[a]ny person using" the described automobile with his permission. The declarations page states that coverage is $250,000 per person for bodily injury, $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, and $100,000 for property damage. In the "Liability" section of the policy, the limits of liability are defined by reference to the declarations page; there is no suggestion here that these limits are different for permissive…

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.