Gilmer

Gilmer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 756·110 Cal. App. 4th 416·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1039·2003 Daily Journal DAR 7678·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6103
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 10, 2003No. E032839California3,000 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

The parties submitted a joint verified petition to the trial court to determine two insurance coverage issues on stipulated facts. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1138-1139.) The first issue is whether the permissive user of a nonowned vehicle is an insured under the policy. The second issue is whether, under the stipulated facts, there was one accident or two. The trial court decided both these issues in favor of the insurance company. Mr. Gilmer, the injured party, appeals. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1140.) We affirm.

THE STIPULATED FACTS

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company issued an automobile liability policy to David Nave as the named insured. The policy, which was in effect on August 25, 2000, covered a car owned by Mr. Nave.

On August 25, 2000, Mr. Nave was contemplating the purchase of a motorhome owned by James Gilmer. Mr. Nave and Shirley Schnell drove to Mr. Gilmer’s home in Apple Valley to take the motorhome for a test drive. Mr. Gilmer initially drove the motorhome for about a mile. Mr. Nave then wanted to drive the motorhome.

The following occurred: “David Nave took over with James Gilmer giving up the driver’s seat and beginning to walk from the driver’s seat…

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.