Apodaca v. Allstate Insurance Co.
2011 Colo. LEXIS 506
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Colorado UM/UIM statute 10-4-609 requires UM/UIM coverage with automobile/motor vehicle liability policies.
- In June 2002, Martinez and Carlton were injured; they were resident relatives under both an auto policy and a personal umbrella policy issued by Allstate.
- Auto policy provided $100,000/$300,000 UM/UIM coverage; umbrella policy provided $1 million excess liability but did not offer UM/UIM.
- Umbrella policy did not include UM/UIM and did not tie to specific motor vehicles.
- Insureds sought judicial reform to add UM/UIM to umbrella policy; trial court and court of appeals held umbrella policy not within 10-4-609’s scope.
- Court affirmatively held umbrella policy is not an “automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy” under the statute; no obligation to offer UM/UIM in umbrella policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether umbrella policies fall within UM/UIM statute scope | Apodaca argues umbrella policies are automobile/motor vehicle policies | Allstate contends umbrella policies are general liability, not subject to 10-4-609 | Umbrella policy not within statute; no UM/UIM obligation |
| Plain language vs public policy in interpreting 10-4-609 | Statute should be read to maximize coverage | Plain language controls; umbrella policies excluded by text | Plain language governs; public policy not to include umbrella policies |
| Impact of MVFRA minimum vs full recovery framework | Umbrella should be covered to maximize recovery | Statutory interpretation not anchored to minimum vs full recovery distinction | Umbrella not included despite MVFRA framework; distinction unpersuasive |
| Effect of legislative evolution on umbrella policy inclusion | Legislative expansions show broader UM/UIM scope | Legislation expanded within auto policies, not umbrella policies | Legislature did not extend UM/UIM to umbrella policies |
| Judge’s reliance on labeling vs policy language | Policy language should reflect umbrella as auto-related | Policy language shows umbrella is general liability | Policy language determines scope; labeling not determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995) ( UM/UIM required when auto policy provides coverage; failure to offer is remedied by policy inclusion)
- Terranova v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 800 P.2d 58 (Colo. 1990) (intent to provide coverage comparable to MVFRA standards)
- Alliance Mut. Cas. Co. v. Duerson, 184 Colo. 117, 518 P.2d 1177 (Colo. 1974) ( UM/UIM availability purposefully protects insureds)
- Passamano v. Travelers Indem. Co., 882 P.2d 1312 (Colo. 1994) (definition of policy context in UM/UIM interpretation)
- Apodaca v. Allstate Ins. Co., 232 P.3d 253 (Colo. App. 2009) (prior appellate ruling that umbrella not subject to UM/UIM)