Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Anderson
2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1585
Colo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Farmers issued a commercial auto policy to Statewide, covering five listed autos, with an after-acquired auto provision.
- Statewide purchased a new pickup on May 2, 2006, but did not timely notify Farmers to add it within 30 days.
- On July 8, 2006, Statewide employee Cone drove the truck to a job site; Naeve, an employee, accompanied him and stood in a closed construction zone next to the parked truck.
- An underinsured motorist collision occurred when a northbound vehicle struck the parked truck, then Naeve, killing Naeve.
- Family settled its claims with the tortfeasor for $100,000; Farmers sought a declaratory judgment that UIM coverage did not apply because the truck was not a covered auto.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Farmers, ruling the truck was not a covered auto because it was not listed/ timely added; the Family appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the truck a covered auto under the policy? | Family contends the truck is covered due to UIM scope and DeHerrera. | Farmers argues the truck was not listed and not timely added, so not a covered auto. | No coverage; truck not a covered auto. |
| Was Naeve occupying or using a covered auto at the time of injury? | Family asserts occupancy/usage of the truck triggered UIM. | Naeve was not occupying any vehicle; truck not a covered auto. | Not occupied; no UIM entitlement. |
| Must UIM follow public policy/statutory requirements when policy language excludes coverage? | McMichael/DeHerrera-type reasoning could require broader UIM coverage. | Policy language and statutory limits do not require broader coverage here. | Public policy/statutory limits do not override; no UIM coverage. |
| Is there ambiguity in the liability-coverage definition of 'who is an insured' that would compel UIM coverage? | Family argues ambiguity favors broader coverage. | Language clearly limits to 'covered autos' occupancy. | No ambiguity; language governs; no UIM coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambrecht v. Hawkeye Security Ins. Co., 852 P.2d 1317 (Colo. App. 1993) (interprets UM coverage for corporate insureds as broader than literal vehicle ownership)
- McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995) (UM/UIM must be as broad as liability coverage for named insured classes)
- DeHerrera v. Sentry Ins. Co., 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001) (UM/UIM must apply to insured persons regardless of vehicle occupancy)
- Jaimes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 53 P.3d 743 (Colo. App. 2002) (owner-not-insured exclusion void when dealing with resident relatives under UM/UIM)
- Bernal v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 97 P.3d 197 (Colo. App. 2003) (vehicle-type restrictions on UM/UIM not always void; limits vary by context)
- Wagner v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Co., 209 P.3d 1119 (Colo. App. 2008) (discusses insurance disclosure and DeHerrera framework for household vs. non-household insureds)
- Briggs v. American National Property & Casualty Co., 209 P.3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2009) (recognizes class-based UM/UIM analysis under DeHerrera framework)
- Pacheco v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2009) (No-Fault Act context; statutory coverage limits affect UM/UIM scope)