Opinion ID: 744916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coverage Under the Rogers' Individual Policies

Text: 41 The Ahrings appeal from the directed verdict entered in favor of SFM that the Ahrings are not entitled to any benefits under the Rogers' individual policies. We review the granting of a directed verdict de novo. Pierce, 76 F.3d at 1037. A directed verdict is proper when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion. Id. 42 The Ahrings contend that the directed verdict was improper because Larry Rogers' personal policy applied to the car as a newly acquired car. Under that policy, Newly Acquired Car is defined as follows: 43 Newly Acquired Car--means a car newly owned by you or your spouse if it:

44 a. if it is a private passenger car, we insure all other private passenger cars, or 45 b. if it is other than a private passenger car, we insure all cars 46 owned by you and your spouse on the date of its delivery to you or your spouse; 47 but only if you or your spouse: 48 1. tell us about it within 30 days after its delivery to your or your spouse; and 49 2. if you or your spouse has more than one of our car policies, tell us which one is to apply; and 50
51 That policy also requires that You are the sole owner of your car. The policy provides uninsured motorist (UM) coverage to any other person while occupying, with permission, either your car [or] a newly acquired car. The Ahrings argue that the Rogers had an insurable ownership interest in the collision pickup because it was partnership property. That insurable interest, they argue, was sufficient to make the collision pickup a Newly Acquired Car and coverage extended automatically for 30 days regardless of intent. 52 Under Arizona law, the Newly Acquired Car provision grants automatic coverage during the notification period. Daniels v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 868 P.2d 353, 354 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994) (applying an identical provision). The majority position among states is that the provision is effective even if the policyholder only has a joint ownership interest in the vehicle. See 39 A.L.R.4th 229, 239 (1986); cf. Sellers v. Allstate Ins. Co., 555 P.2d 1113, 1115 (Ariz.1976) (applying similar additional automobile coverage from the wife's policy to husband with equitable ownership); R.J. Robinson and Son v. Houston Fire and Cas. Co., 200 So.2d 776, 777 & n. 3 (La.Ct.App.1967) (involving facts nearly identical to this case--a car newly acquired by a partnership garage--but holding that there was not sufficient ownership because partners do not have ownership interest in partnership property under the unique Louisiana partnership law). 53 We nonetheless hold that there is no coverage under the Rogers' individual policies. As stated in Daniels, the newly acquired car provision grants automatic coverage during the notification period. 868 P.2d at 354 (emphasis added). That is, the provision provides a coverage window for cars that the policyholder may choose to add to their insurance policy. The Ahrings also acknowledge that the Rogers had thirty days to notify SFM to insure the car. They then argue that coverage extends automatically because the collision took place within that window and the Rogers had not selected to apply a different policy. 54 The Ahrings fail to acknowledge that the Rogers could not select the SFM policy to apply to the collision pickup. The pickup could not be added to an individual policy because either of the Rogers must be the sole owner of any car selected for coverage. A newly acquired car provision provides temporary coverage while the policyholder decides whether to add the car to the policy. Such a provision may not apply where, as here, the car may never be added to the policy. 55 Reserve Ins. Co. v. Staats, 453 P.2d 239 (Ariz.Ct.App.1969) reached a similar conclusion under analogous circumstances. In that case, the policyholder crashed a car he had just bought and he tried to apply a newly acquired automobile provision. Id. at 241. The court noted that he sought, bought, and paid for an operator's policy, which he knew did not include coverage for an owned automobile. Id. at 242. The court held that the provision was inapplicable because the stated prerequisite for coverage, the insured's ownership of an automobile or automobiles insured under the policy, is not met. Id. Similarly, neither Rogers brother owned an automobile insured under his SFM policy because the pickup did not have one sole owner. Therefore, the newly acquired car provision is inapplicable for both of them. 6