The California Court of Appeal has held that uninsured motorist coverage did not apply to a listed “driver” who, while crossing the street as a pedestrian, was struck by an uninsured motorist. ( Mercury Ins. Co. v. Pearson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1064)
Facts
Susan Hyung and her live-in fiancé, Douglass Pearson, were pedestrians in a crosswalk when they were struck by a speeding car driven by an uninsured motorist. Hyung died from her injuries and Pearson was seriously injured.
Prior to the accident, Mercury Casualty Company had issued an automobile insurance policy which listed Hyung as the “named insured,” and which listed both Hyung and Pearson as “drivers.” The policy’s uninsured motorist section provided coverage to (1) named insureds, their spouses and resident relatives while occupying a motor vehicle or otherwise, and (2) any other person “while in or upon or entering into or alighting from an insured motor vehicle.” The policy also contained a “Designated Persons Endorsement” which was signed by both Hyung and Pearson, and which stated among other things that the UM coverage did not apply to bodily injury “sustained by a resident of the same household as the Named Insured, who is not a relative, unless such person(s) is occupying a motor vehicle listed in the policy declarations.”
Hyung’s heirs made a claim under the UM coverage of the policy. In response, Mercury paid Hyung’s heirs the UM coverage’s per-person limit of $100,000. Pearson also made a claim under the UM coverage of the policy. However, Mercury denied Pearson’s UM claim on the grounds that Pearson did not qualify as (1) a named insured, spouse or resident relative, or (2) any other person “while in or upon or entering into or alighting from an insured motor vehicle.”
Mercury sued Pearson for declaratory relief, and Pearson cross-complained against Mercury for declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court ruled in favor of Mercury and Pearson appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Although the Mercury policy’s UM section covered a named insured, spouse or resident relative either while occupying a motor vehicle or as a pedestrian, Pearson was not a named insured, spouse or resident relative. Further, although Mercury’s UM section covered any other person “while in or upon or entering into or alighting from an insured motor vehicle,” Pearson was injured not while occupying an insured motor vehicle, but rather, while crossing the street on foot. Accordingly, the Mercury policy did not provide UM coverage for Pearson.
Comment
In California, UM coverage is governed by Insurance Code section 11580.2. The statute requires insurers to provide UM coverage for bodily injury to named insureds, spouses and resident relatives, whether or not they are occupying a motor vehicle at the time of the accident. However, the statute only requires insurers to provide UM coverage for other persons “while in or upon or entering into or alighting from an insured motor vehicle.” In this case, the language of Mercury’s UM coverage mirrored the language set forth in the statute, and thus there was no basis for arguing that the policy language was ambiguous.