Opinion ID: 1059209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the Omnibus Clause to the Umbrella Policy

Text: The Moores contend that the umbrella policy is one of bodily injury or property damage liability insurance . . . issued . . . upon any motor vehicle . . . principally garaged. . . in this Commonwealth under Code § 38.2-2204(A). They argue that the umbrella policy is written upon the automobile in which the accident occurred and therefore that the omnibus clause applies to void any exclusion from coverage under Code § 38.2-2204(D). The trial court's order does not specify the reason for the court's holding that the omnibus clause applies; however, the trial judge stated from the bench that the umbrella policy exclusion violated the omnibus clause because there is no difference between Mr. Moore as a plaintiff and Mr. X as a plaintiff. In any event, we disagree with the Moores and the trial court that the omnibus clause applies to the umbrella policy. First and foremost, the Moores' argument fails, and the trial court erred, because the umbrella policy is not a policy issued upon any motor vehicle as contemplated by the omnibus clause. While the automobile policy is clearly within the ambit of the omnibus clause, the policy is written by its plain terms to insure the automobile and the Moores by virtue of their use of that automobile. The automobile policy specifically identifies the Moores' vehicle as an owned automobile and in the agreement GEICO specifically agrees to pay for bodily injury . . . arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile. By contrast, the umbrella policy's plain terms contain no explicit agreement to insure against incidents causally related to ownership of an automobile, but instead provide general liability insurance for damages upon an occurrence. Nowhere does the umbrella policy undertake to insure the Moores' vehicle as the automobile policy does. The umbrella policy provides personal insurance for general liability. We have clearly recognized that a general liability policy, simply because it can provide coverage for a claim related to a motor vehicle, aircraft or a watercraft accident, does not come within the ambit of the omnibus clause because the policy is not written upon the car, plane or boat. In Continental Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 238 Va. 209, 380 S.E.2d 661 (1989), Continental's insured owned a boat which, while being operated by the owner's friend, struck and caused injury to a third party. The Continental policy specifically insured the boat and provided boating liability, but also contained an excess over other insurance clause. Id. at 210, 380 S.E.2d at 662. The owner's friend was insured under a State Farm homeowner's personal liability policy which covered claims for bodily injury arising out of his use or operation of watercraft. The State Farm policy also contained an excess over other insurance clause. Id. Continental contended that each policy's excess coverage exclusion violated the omnibus clause and both were therefore void so that each insurer must contribute pro rata to the accident damages. We held that only Continental's policy violated the omnibus clause because it was issued upon `watercraft'. The State Farm policy was not issued upon watercraft, and thus the omnibus clause did not apply and no contribution was due from State Farm. Id. at 212, 380 S.E.2d at 663. We had previously reached a similar conclusion in Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 211 Va. 373, 177 S.E.2d 625 (1970). It is a personal liability policy and the `omnibus clause' is not applicable to such a policy. Id. at 376, 177 S.E.2d at 627. For the same reasons noted in the foregoing cases, the umbrella policy in the case at bar is one of general liability and by its plain terms is not issued upon a motor vehicle. Therefore, the omnibus clause does not apply. The Moores further argue that in this case the umbrella policy is governed by the omnibus clause because it lists rating information factors on the face of the policy. The rating information listed includes a factor for the Moores' specific vehicle. Listing such rating information, however, does not convert the general liability policy into one issued upon any motor vehicle. The coverage terms of an insurance policy are a matter of contract between the parties, but the insurer's rating information is not. The plain language of Code § 38.2-2204 does not support the view that insurance premium rating information shown in a policy of general liability transforms that policy into one written upon any motor vehicle and thus subject to the omnibus clause. In State Capital Ins. Co. v. The Mutual Assurance Soc. of Virginia, 218 Va. 815, 241 S.E.2d 759 (1978), we considered whether a contract of general liability insurance was covered by the omnibus clause because the policy contained a watercraft endorsement for boats of a certain horsepower. Several general liability homeowners policies provided coverage for injuries sustained in a boating accident and all the policies contained an excess over other insurance clause. The trial court ruled that each insurer was to contribute pro rata to the total recovery. State Capital contended that a watercraft endorsement in the Mutual Assurance policy converted it from a general liability policy to one issued . . . upon [a] watercraft and thus subject to the omnibus clause and primary liability. We held that the omnibus clause did not apply because the Mutual Assurance endorsement simply clarified an exclusion in its policy by reference to a specific horsepower of an outboard motor and was therefore not issued upon [any] watercraft. [2] State Capital, 218 Va. at 819, 241 S.E.2d at 761. For all these reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the omnibus clause applied to the umbrella policy.