OPINION
This сase involves the hit-and-run provision of the uninsured motorist clause in an automobile insurance policy.
Josefina Guzman was a passenger in an automobile insured by Allstate Insurance Company which wаs being driven by Pablo R. Landin, III. Guzman was injured when Landin lost control of the automobile. She sued Allstate under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance policy. The trial court granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment. Guzman appeals. We affirm.
At about 1:20 a.m., while driving on a two-lane road, Landin was blinded by the bright lights of an approaching vehicle. When he realized that the vehicle was in his lane, Landin turned to the right in order to avoid a head-on collision. Landin lost control of the automobile, and it slid into a post. The other vehicle did not stop, and the driver was not identified. There was no physical contact betweеn Landin’s automobile and the unidentified vehicle.
The issue is whether Allstate conclusively established that thе hit-and-run vehicle was not an “Uninsured Motor Vehicle” under the policy.
The insurance policy provides:
“Uninsured Motor Vehicle” means a land motor vehicle ...
(2) Which is a hit and run vehicle whose operаtor or owner cannot be identified and which hits:
(c) Your covered auto. (Emphasis added)
Guzman first argues that the word “hits” in the policy is ambiguous, contеnding that Allstate cannot rely upon the cases involving policies providing that there must be “physical contact” between the hit-and-run vehicle and the insured vehicle. See Annot.,
In
Goen v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas, Inc.,
*879 Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 5.06-1 (Vernon 1981) prescribes that аutomobile liability insurance policies provide uninsured motorist coverage. In directing the Statе Board of Insurance concerning the content of the insurance policy provisions, Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 5.06-l(2)(d) (Vernon 1981) requires that:
The forms promulgated under the authority of this section shall require that in order for the insured to recover under the uninsured motorist coverage where the owner or opеrator of any motor vehicle which causes bodily injury or property damage to the insured is unknown, actual physical contact must have occurred bеtween the motor vehicle owned or operated by such unknown person and the person оr property of the insured. (Emphasis in original)
In this statute the Legislature clearly articulated its intent that thе uninsured motorist protection not apply when an unknown person causes damage or injury to the insured, unless there is physical contact with the unknown person’s vehicle.
The insurance policy in
Bonis v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.,
Therefore, the terms of the insurance policy excluded from coverage an accidеnt such as the one which is the subject of this suit in which there was no physical contact between the “hit аnd run” vehicle and the insured vehicle.
The court in
Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company,
“Hit” is defined in WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY 863 (2d ed. 1983) as “to come against, usually with force; strike; as, the сar
hit
the tree.” (Emphasis in original) “Contact” is defined as “the act of touching or meeting.” WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY 393 (2d ed. 1983). The word “hits” in thе policy is susceptible to only one reasonable construction. See
Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co.,
Guzman also argues that the unknown vehicle “hit” the covered automobile, within the terms of the pоlicy, when the bright lights impaired Landin’s visibility. She contends there was a “photogenic, molecular interaction from the offending vehicle and the insured’s vehicle which caused the accident.”
When confronted with the argument urged by Guzman, the California Court in
Krych v. Mercury Casualty Company,
[W]e think it clear that the words “physical contact” were not intended to describe the reception by a vehicle or by an occupant of a vеhicle of light emitted, projected or diffused from the headlights of another vehicle, but to describе a meeting of three-dimensional masses of material having weight, density and bulk, with dimensions perceptiblе to the normal naked eye.
Holding contrary to Guzman’s contention, the Idaho Court in Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, supra, held:
Neither is there physical contact, as contemplated by thе insurance policy, where the transmitted “contact” is nothing *880 more than a molecular interaction such as sound or light energy.
The “indirect contact” rule discussed in
Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company,
In the instant case, there was no physical contact with the unknown person’s vehicle. The uninsured motorist provision does not apply.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.