Opinion ID: 2640771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: utah law requires insurance companies to provide motor vehicle liability coverage with minimum mandatory limits

Text: ¶ 13 We have previously noted the labyrinthine framework of our laws relating to automobile insurance; [6] the statutory provisions at issue in this case involve that very labyrinth. Utah law requires that every resident owner of a motor vehicle shall maintain owner's or operator's security in effect at any time that the motor vehicle is operated. [7] And the insurance policy purchased by an owner to satisfy this requirement must include motor vehicle liability coverage under Sections 31A-22-303 and 31A-22-304. [8] Section 31A-22-303 requires a policy to insure . . . against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the . . . use of . . . motor vehicles. [9] Section 31A-22-304, in turn, mandates minimum limits for a motor vehicle policy: Policies containing motor vehicle liability coverage may not limit the insurer's liability under that coverage below the following: (1)(a) $25,000 because of liability for bodily injury to or death of one person, arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in any one accident; (b) subject to the limit for one person in Subsection (a), in the amount of $50,000 because of liability for bodily injury to or death of two or more persons arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in any one accident; and (c) in the amount of $15,000 because of liability for injury to, or destruction of, property of others arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in any one accident; or (2) $65,000 in any one accident whether arising from bodily injury to or the death of others, or from destruction of, or damage to, the property of others. ¶ 14 Section 31A-22-304 is at the heart of the dispute. The Ewarts argue that loss of consortium is a liability imposed by law that is necessarily covered by section 31A-22-303. As a result, they urge that Mrs. Ewart's loss of consortium claim must be covered by its own liability limit of $25,000 over and above the $25,000 liability limit covering Mr. Ewart's bodily injury claim. They argue that the term bodily injury in section 31A-22-304 should be broadly construed such that it provides minimal coverage for all injuries, including loss of consortium, that arise out of motor vehicle accidents. Otherwise limiting the definition of bodily injury, they contend, would have the absurd result of excluding certain types of injuries, such as emotional and psychological injuries, from liability coverage. ¶ 15 In contrast, Progressive argues for a plain language reading of section 31A-22-304. Under the plain language of the statute, it contends, the minimum mandatory liability limits are defined relative to the number of bodily injuries that result from a motor vehicle accident, not the number of claims that arise from it. Progressive argues that a loss of consortium claim is not a claim for a bodily injury; as such, it is not subject to the minimum mandatory liability limits imposed by the statute, and Progressive need not provide a separate liability limit for Mrs. Ewart's loss of consortium claim. II. UTAH'S MINIMUM MANDATORY LIMITS FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE ARE TIED TO THE NUMBER OF BODILY INJURIES OR DEATHS SUSTAINED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT, NOT THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS THAT ARISE FROM IT ¶ 16 When interpreting a statute, we turn to standard canons of statutory construction. In so doing, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent. [10] We first look to the plain language of the statute and give effect to that language unless it is ambiguous. [11] Only where that language is ambiguous do we consult other sources for its meaning. [12] ¶ 17 The plain language of Utah Code section 31A-22-304 ties the mandatory liability coverage obligation of insurers to the number of persons who sustain a bodily injury or die in an accident involving a motor vehicle. When that number is one, the statute mandates liability coverage of at least $25,000; when that number is two or more, the statute mandates minimum coverage of at least $50,000. [13] ¶ 18 Because the Ewarts concede that Mr. Kunz's policy provides him the protection of only a single person policy limit, Mrs. Ewart is entitled to her own policy limit only if the statute requires separate coverage for loss of consortium, which it clearly does not. Mrs. Ewart's claim is not one for bodily injury but one for loss of consortium characterized as a loss of financial support; this is not a claim for which a separate minimum liability limit is required under section 31A-22-304. Any damages that flow to Mrs. Ewart from her husband's bodily injury fall under the limit applicable to her husbandthe person who sustained the bodily injury. Mrs. Ewart's claim is therefore included within the $25,000 liability coverage for bodily injury to one person, and it does not have a separate limit of its own. ¶ 19 Bodily injury should not be construed broadly enough to encompass a loss of consortium claim as the Ewarts would have us conclude. First, bodily is commonly understood to refer to, simply, the body, [14] and Mrs. Ewart's loss of consortium claim in no way involves a bodily injury to her. Second, construing bodily injury broadly enough to include a loss of consortium claim would, essentially, require us to read the term bodily out of the statute altogether. The fact is, the Legislature imposed minimum liability coverage obligations in section 31A-22-304 with respect to bodily injury and property injury. The statute does not speak of other categories of injury, and we will not deem the Legislature's use of the modifier bodily in section 31A-22-304 inadvertent. [15] Should the Legislature wish to extend the minimum mandatory coverage limits to include claims for nonbodily injuries such as loss of consortium, it is, of course, free to do so.