Svetlana Koren v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
34723-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Eric Koren, a minor and resident relative, was injured in a collision involving two standard-capacity school buses.
- His mother, Svetlana Koren, sought Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits from her insurer, State Farm.
- The State Farm policy provided PIP coverage for bodily injury “caused by an automobile accident” and expressly defined “automobile” as a motor vehicle registered or designed for carrying ten passengers or less.
- The policy did not define “accident” or “automobile accident.”
- State Farm denied the claim because each bus exceeded the ten-passenger definition and thus were not “automobiles” under the policy; Koren sued and both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for State Farm; the Court of Appeals affirmed on discretionary review and remanded for remaining extra-contractual claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a collision between two school buses is an "automobile accident" under the PIP policy | Koren: “Automobile accident” is a term of art that broadly covers motor vehicle collisions, so PIP should apply to all vehicle collisions | State Farm: Policy limits PIP to accidents involving vehicles that meet the policy definition of "automobile" (≤10 passengers) | Held: "Automobile accident" must involve a vehicle that meets the policy's definition of "automobile;" buses here are excluded |
| Whether the undefined term "automobile accident" should be interpreted contrary to the policy's definition of "automobile" | Koren: Ambiguity in not defining phrase requires broad coverage | State Farm: No ambiguity—modifier "automobile" narrows "accident" to accidents causally related to an "automobile" as defined | Held: No ambiguity; modifier restricts scope; accident must be causally connected to an "automobile" as defined in policy |
| Whether excluding large-capacity buses from PIP coverage violates public policy | Koren: Public policy favors coverage for motor vehicle collisions | State Farm: Policy mirrors statutory definitions; exclusion is permissible | Held: No public policy violation; Washington statutes define "automobile" similarly and do not require PIP for large-capacity vehicles |
| Whether precedent (Grelis, Tyrrell) requires broader construction of "automobile accident" | Koren: Cites Grelis and Tyrrell as supporting a broad meaning covering all motor vehicle accidents | State Farm: Precedents actually support reading the modifier as limiting coverage to accidents involving the defined vehicle | Held: Grelis and Tyrrell support limiting the modifier (automobile/motor vehicle) and do not extend coverage beyond policy definitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash. v. Grelis, 43 Wn. App. 475, 718 P.2d 812 (1986) (held modifier narrows scope; an "automobile accident" requires causal relation to operation of the automobile)
- Tyrrell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 140 Wn.2d 129, 994 P.2d 833 (2000) (adopted Grelis approach; a "motor vehicle accident" sensibly involves operation of the vehicle)
- Roller v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 115 Wn.2d 679, 801 P.2d 207 (1990) (policy language governs coverage; insured-party construction principles apply)