Mullins

Mullins v. Mayflower Insurance

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 635·9 Cal. App. 4th 416
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 18, 1992B063012California1,725 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

Pat Mullins appeals from a judgment entered following summary judgment in favor of respondent Mayflower Insurance Company (Mayflower). (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (/).) She contends that: (1) she is a covered person under the Mayflower insurance policy; (2) the strict statutory definition of an underinsured motor vehicle has been strictly met in this case; and (3) Mayflower’s right to credit does not take precedence over her right to receive compensation for her unsatisfied damages. We affirm the judgment.

Facts

November 20, 1989, appellant filed a declaratory relief action against Mayflower and other individuals to determine whether she could recover underinsured motorist benefits for an accident which occurred March 31, 1989, and which resulted in the death of her son, decedent Scott Mullins. Mayflower had issued an automobile policy to named insureds Robert and Penelope Botens. The Mayflower policy in effect on the date of the accident included underinsured motorist coverage with a per accident limit of $300,000 for “covered persons” under the policy. The policy included a “California Amendment” which provided that, “an underinsured motor vehicle is one to which…

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.