Opinion ID: 2156069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: `Bodily injury' sustained by:

Text: b. Any `family member' while `occupying' or when struck by any vehicle owned by that `family member' that is not a covered `auto' for Uninsured Motorists Coverage under this Coverage Form; or c. Any `family member' while `occupying' or when struck by any vehicle owned by you that is insured for Uninsured Motorists Coverage on a primary basis under any other Coverage Form or policy. (Emphasis added). Petitioners' reading looks primarily to Part B of the Endorsement. Petitioners say that the named insured (You) is Bushey, an individual, and that Miranda was a family member. Accordingly, Miranda was an insured under the insuring clause of the Endorsement, there is no exclusion that applies to her, and the UM/ UIM coverage applies to the claim of her estate. Similarly, and assuming that Susan's estate would be liable to the Parents, the wrongful death claim of the Parents is because of the bodily injury sustained by Miranda and would be covered by Part B, ¶ 4 of the Endorsement. Miranda's bodily injury is not excluded from the UM/UIM coverage because, although she was occupying an auto that was not a covered auto, the exclusion for claims by a family member injured while occupying a non-covered vehicle is subject to the further limitation that the non-covered vehicle be owned by the injured family member. See Endorsement, Part C, ¶ 3.b. Northern's reading of the policy, under which the entire Endorsement is limited by its introduction to a covered `auto' renders Part B, ¶ 3 redundant. If, regardless of relationship to the named insured, all claimants for UM/UIM benefits must have been occupants of a `covered auto,' it becomes totally unnecessary to specify in Part B, ¶ 3 that payment of those benefits for anyone else, i.e., other than the named insured or a family member of the named insured, depended on `occupying' a covered `auto.' Similarly, it would have been unnecessary to exclude from [b]odily injury in Part C, ¶ 3.b an injury sustained by a family member in any vehicle owned by that family member that is not a covered `auto,' if occupying any non-covered auto, in and of itself, would exclude coverage. The references to covered autos in the general structure of the policy on which Northern relies at best create an ambiguity. No extrinsic evidence has been offered to resolve the ambiguity. Accordingly, if Bushey is the insured and if Miranda is a family member, there is coverage, because the ambiguity, if any, concerning occupying a covered `auto' is resolved against Northern.