Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance
226 Ariz. 198
Ariz. Ct. App.2010Background
- Jennifer Bither, as a statutory beneficiary, sues Country Mutual to recover UM benefits following her daughter's death.
- Felicia Edwards, a minor, was killed in a collision with an uninsured motorist; Edwards was an insured under her parents' Country Mutual policy.
- The policy provided $250,000 in UM coverage; Edwards was an occupant insured under the policy.
- Bither seeks UM recovery on behalf of herself and other statutory beneficiaries under A.R.S. § 12-612(C).
- The superior court granted summary judgment favoring Bither, interpreting A.R.S. § 20-259.03 to allow recovery by non-insured beneficiaries.
- The court of appeals reverses, holding that § 20-259.03 precludes UM recovery for a statutory beneficiary who is not an insured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 20-259.03 preclude non-insured statutory beneficiaries from UM recovery? | Bither argues beneficiaries may recover UM when authorized to receive damages. | Country Mutual argues only surviving insureds may recover UM benefits under § 20-259.03. | Yes; non-insured statutory beneficiaries may not recover UM benefits. |
| Does the second sentence of § 20-259.03 permit recovery by a decedent's estate when a surviving insured exists? | Estate could recover UM if no surviving insured qualifies under § 12-612. | Estate recovery is limited only when no surviving insured qualifies; here Edwards had a surviving insured relative. | No; the second sentence does not authorize recovery in Bither's posture. |
| Is the court's interpretation consistent with public policy and legislative intent? | UM policy should aid all statutory beneficiaries. | Legislature intended to protect insureds; non-insured beneficiaries are not protected. | The interpretation aligns with legislative intent and public policy favoring insureds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Williams, 23 Ariz. App. 191, 531 P.2d 924 (App. 1975) (remedial construction not to expand beyond statute's plain meaning)
- In re Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 225 Ariz. 275, 237 P.3d 628 (App. 2010) (legislature defines scope of damages in statutory actions)
- Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 198 Ariz. 310, 9 P.3d 1049 (2000) (public policy to protect insureds against uninsured motorists)
- Spain v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 189, 731 P.2d 84 (App. 1986) (UM coverage protects insured victims)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tarantino, 114 Ariz. 420, 561 P.2d 744 (1977) (UM policy aims to protect insureds when harmed by uninsured motorists)