Heir Is Entitled to Uninsured Motorist Benefits Only Under Automobile Policy, Not Umbrella Policy

A legal heir was entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits only under an automobile policy, not under an umbrella policy. (Komorsky v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2019) — Cal.App.5th —)

Facts

Alan and Linda Liker, husband and wife, were named insureds on an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). The Farmers automobile policy provided uninsured motorist coverage of up to $250,000 per person. Mr. Liker was also the named insured on an umbrella insurance policy issued by Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck). The Truck umbrella policy provided uninsured motorist coverage of up to $1,000,000.

Melissa Komorsky was Mrs. Liker’s adult daughter from a prior marriage. Ms. Komorsky did not reside with Mr. and Mrs. Liker.

Mrs. Liker was killed in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. Mr. Liker made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under both the Farmers automobile policy and the Truck umbrella policy. Ms. Komorsky also made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under both policies.

Ms. Komorsky sued Farmers, Truck and Mr. Liker for a declaration that Ms. Komorsky was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under both the Farmers automobile policy and the Truck umbrella policy. At least initially, Farmers and Truck asserted that Ms. Komorsky was entitled to benefits under both policies. However, Mr. Liker contended that Ms. Komorsky was only entitled to benefits under the Farmers automobile policy, not under the Truck umbrella policy.

Ultimately, the trial court ruled that Ms. Komorsky was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits only under the Farmers automobile policy, not under the Truck umbrella policy. Ms. Komorsky appealed.

Holding

The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

Insurance Code section 11580.2(a)(1) requires a primary automobile liability insurance policy to include uninsured motorist coverage, unless the insurer and insured agree in writing to waive such coverage. Pursuant to section 11580.2(a)(1), uninsured motorist coverage must provide benefits to the insured “or the insured’s heirs” for damages they are entitled to recover from an uninsured motorist. Section 11580.2(a)(1) further states that “a policy shall be excluded from the application of this section if the automobile liability coverage is provided only on an excess or umbrella basis.”

Consistent with section 11580.2(a)(1), the Farmers automobile policy defined an “insured” so as to include Mr. and Mrs. Liker and “any person for damages that person is entitled to recover” because of bodily injury to either Mr. or Mrs. Liker. Here, Ms. Komorsky was an heir of Mrs. Liker, and thus Ms. Komorsky was a person who was “entitled to recover” damages because of the death of Mrs. Liker. As such, Ms. Komorsky was an “insured” under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Farmers automobile policy.

However, by its terms, section 11580.2(a)(1) was not applicable to the Truck umbrella policy. Specifically, the statute did not require that the Truck umbrella policy define an “insured” so as include an heir of Mrs. Liker. With respect to the Truck umbrella policy itself, the policy stated that Truck would pay uninsured motorist benefits to Mr. and Mrs. Liker and “any other insured under this policy.” The Truck umbrella policy then defined an “insured” so as to include Mrs. Liker’s relatives who were living in her household. Here, at the time of Mrs. Liker’s death, Ms. Komorsky was not living in Mrs. Liker’s household. Thus, Ms. Komorsky was not an “insured” under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Truck umbrella policy.

Comment

Ms. Komorsky also argued that Truck should be “estopped” from denying coverage to her under the Truck umbrella policy, and that the Truck umbrella policy should be “reformed” to include Ms. Komorsky as an insured under the policy. The appellate court rejected both arguments, reasoning that neither the elements for estoppel nor the elements for reformation were present.

Ultimately, the real “winner” in this case may have been Mr. Liker. The ruling that Ms. Komorsky was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the Truck umbrella policy essentially meant that Mr. Liker was the only one who was entitled to such benefits under that policy.

Leave a Reply