Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Robles
2011 WL 6091732
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- On January 21, 2008, a two-vehicle accident occurred between the claimant and a tortfeasor who lived with his parents.
- The tortfeasor was driving his father's Oldsmobile insured by Farmers; the tortfeasor and his father were named insureds on Farmers' policy.
- The tortfeasor owned a Ford Explorer insured by Mid-Century; the tortfeasor and his father were named insureds on the Mid-Century policy.
- The Oldsmobile was used by the tortfeasor at the time of the accident to move paintings, not to replace the Explorer.
- The claimant settled with Farmers for $100,000 under Farmers' policy limits and sought coverage declaration from Mid-Century, which denied coverage.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mid-Century, finding no coverage due to the 'insured car' definition and the 'regular use' exclusion; anti-stacking was not addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oldsmobile qualifies as an insured car | Mid-Century argues Oldsmobile is not an insured car under replacement vehicle language. | Robles contends the Oldsmobile should be treated as an insured car for coverage. | Oldsmobile not an insured car; no coverage under policy. |
| Effect of the regular use/drive other car exclusion | Exclusion applies since the Oldsmobile was owned by a family member and furnished for regular use. | Robles asserts exclusion does not apply to this arrangement. | Exclusion applies; no coverage for the accident. |
| Is the analysis controlled by the definition of replacement vehicle | Policy replacement vehicle language should limit coverage to a substituted vehicle. | Robles argues broader interpretation should apply to the Oldsmobile. | Replacement vehicle language unambiguously excludes the Oldsmobile as not replacing the Explorer. |
| Impact of anti-stacking provision | Stacking issue is relevant if coverage exists; otherwise not. | No change in result regardless of stacking. | Not necessary to resolve since coverage does not exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 12 P.3d 307 (Colo. App. 2000) (regular use exclusion limited to non-listed vehicles)
- Johnson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 816 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1991) (exclusions construed against insurer; clear language required)
- Parfrey v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Parfrey), 830 P.2d 905 (Colo. 1992) (replacement policy concept and interpretive framework)
- Mast v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 153 A.2d 893 (Del. Super. Ct. 1959) (replacement vehicle contemplated when replacement occurs)