Opinion ID: 2271593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Do both policies apply to the same motor vehicle?

Text: Even if section 11580.9, subdivision (d) could be read to include UM coverage, the statute is triggered only when two policies `apply to the same motor vehicle.' ( Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 890, 902-903, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 606.) Progressive argues that, here, only its policy applies to the Jetta, and the State Farm policy does not. State Farm argues its policy does apply to the Jetta as a non-owned car, and supports this contention with language from the medical payments section of the policy. The section reads in pertinent part: We will pay medical expenses for bodily injury sustained by: 1. a. The first person named in the declarations [that is, Robert J. Deam]; b. his or her spouse [that is, Linda Deam]; and c. their relatives [that is, Julie Deam]. These persons must have sustained the bodily injury: a. While they operate or occupy a vehicle covered under the liability section; or b. Through being struck as a pedestrian by a motor vehicle or trailer. (Italics added.) Non-owned cars may qualify as vehicles covered under the liability section, but only when used by the named policyholders, their relatives, or nonrelatives with consent. `[U]se' includes only operating, maintaining, loading, or unloading a motor vehicle. (§ 11580.06, subd. (g).) Here, the Jetta was not being used by any insured under the State Farm policy and was not a covered vehicle under the liability section. Since this case involves UM coverage, we analyze whether the UM coverage applies to the Jetta. By statute, UM coverage must be provided to a named insured or relatives living in the named insured's household, if they are injured while occupants of a motor vehicle or otherwise. (§ 11580.2, subd. (b), italics added.) These persons are covered for injuries caused by an uninsured motorist without reference to an insured automobile or possibly any motor vehicle. ( Daun v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 599, 607, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 44, citing Lopez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 210, 212, 58 Cal.Rptr. 243 [holding UM coverage had to be provided to an insured who was on foot when injured by an uninsured motor vehicle].) The coverage must be provided regardless of whether the individual is in a motor vehicle or on a horse, motorcycle, bicycle or stilts when injured by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. ( Daun, supra, at p. 610, 23 Cal. Rptr.3d 44.) The State Farm policy provides the type of coverage required by statute and by case law, that is, it covers Ms. Deam, as an insured, for bodily injury [she] is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be sustained by an insured and caused by accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Under the terms of the policy, Ms. Deam's occupancy of the Jetta was incidental to State Farm's obligations toward her. Those obligations were triggered solely because she was injured by a motorist who was driving an uninsured vehicle. We conclude the State Farm uninsured motorist coverage does not apply to the Jetta. Therefore, subdivision (d) of section 11590 does not operate to allocate payments between the two insurers.