OPINION
This аppeal is taken from the summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs/appellees Jack Bеnton Daniels and Patricia Hefley Daniels on the issue of coverage provided by a poliсy issued by defendant/appellant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). We affirm.
*341 Thе underlying facts are undisputed. State Farm issued an automobile insurance policy to Patricia Hеfley covering her Honda automobile from September 25,1989 through March 28, 1990. Patricia was then residing with, but was nоt yet married to, Jack Daniels. Her adult son Rick Lee Smith also lived with the couple. On November 19, 1989, Patriсia purchased a 1967 Chevrolet pickup truck. On November 24, Smith was driving the truck with his mother’s permission and with Jack as a passenger when, as a result of Smith’s negligence, the truck struck a light pole and Jack was sеverely injured.
The parties agree that the policy State Farm issued to Patricia Hefley provided coverage for Smith when he was driving a “newly acquired car.” That term is defined by the policy as follows:
Newly Acquired Car—means a car newly owned by you or your spouse if it:
1. replaces your car; or
2. is an added car and:
a. if it is a private passenger car, we insure all other private passenger cars, or
b. if it is other than a private pаssenger car, we insure all cars
owned by you and your spouse on the date of its delivery to you or your spouse; but only if you or your spouse:
1. tell us about it within 30 days after its delivery to you or your spouse; аnd
2. if you or your spouse has more than one of our car policies, tell us which one is to apply; and
3. pay us any added amount due.
State Farm was advised of neither the acquisition of the truck nor the accident until after August 1, 1991, when the Daniels sued Smith for damages and Smith requested that State Farm defend him. State Farm declined, and the Daniels entered a default judgment against Smith in the amount of $350,000 together with interest and costs.
Smith then assigned Ms rights against State Farm to the Darnels, who filed suit against State Farm seeking damages for breach of contract, bad faith, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction оf emotional distress. They followed with a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of coverage, which the trial court granted. The parties stipulated to damages in the amount of the Darnels’ judgment against Smith, and tMs appeal followed.
The issue presented is whether coverage is afforded undеr the newly-acquired veMcle provision when the vehicle is involved in an accident within the thirty-day period for reporting the acquisition, but the insured fails to report the acquisition either within the thirty-day period or during the policy period. State Farm concedes that coverage under the provision is automatic for thirty days, provided that the insured notifies the company of the acquisition during that period, even if the notification occurs after the accident. Because it contends that thе notification requirement and the provision as a whole are clear and unambiguous, and beсause there is no dispute that Darnels did not give notification until after the expiration of not only thе thirty-day period but also the policy itself, State Farm argues that the provision should be enforced to deny coverage.
The parties agree that tMs is a question of first impression in Arizona, but one wMсh has been litigated extensively elsewhere.
See
James L. Isham, Annotation,
Construction and Application of “Automatice Insurаnce” or “Newly Acquired Vehicle” Clause (“Replacement,” and “Blanket,” or “Fleet” Provisions) Contаined in Automobile Liability Policy,
Moreover, “[sjince coverage is automatic throughout the designated period, it is immaterial that the insured (1) does not notify the company within the period that he has acquired an additional automobile and (2) never pays an additional premium.”
Hall,
Affirmed.