Opinion ID: 2561909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Progressive Policy Meets Minimum Statutory Requirements.

Text: Alaska Statute 28.22.311 defines a motor vehicle liability policy as an owner's policy, an operator's policy, or a personal policy that ... meets the requirements of AS 28.22.101. According to AS 28.22.101(a), an owner's policy must designate ... the motor vehicles that it covers and insure the person named against loss arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a designated motor vehicle. By comparison, a personal motor vehicle liability policy offers broader coverage, insuring the person named as insured against loss arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use by the named person of a motor vehicle whether owned or not owned by the person. [10] The superior court found that Progressive issued a personal motor vehicle liability policy. Progressive argues that it issued an owner's policy and that offering limited additional coverage should not bind it to the statutory requirements for a personal policy. We agree with Progressive's interpretation of the statute. It was error to conclude that Progressive had to insert explicit language in the policy identifying it as an `owner's' policy. The superior court's holding relied on findings that the Progressive policy expressly provides non-owned vehicle coverage and that the title of the Personal Auto Policy Declarations Page signed by Skin does not identify the policy as an `owner's policy' or an `operator's policy.' As a result, the superior court concluded, the policy had to meet the requirements of a personal motor vehicle policy as described in AS 28.22.101(c). But nothing in the statutes or our case law requires an insurer to explicitly label a motor vehicle liability policy as either an owner's policy or a personal policy. Moreover, the policy declarations page signed by Skin hardly implicates the broad coverage that the superior court read a personal policy to require. First, the declarations page specifies the make, model, and VIN number of the Chevrolet Prizm that Skin planned to purchase. In other words, it designate[s] ... the motor vehicle[] that it covers, [11] as an owner's policy must do. Moreover, the declarations page contains a box labeled Personal Auto Liability, which lists categories of automobile liability coverage, including coverage for any auto, scheduled autos, and non-owned autos. Skin's policy declarations page indicates that she purchased coverage only for scheduled autos. A purchaser of a personal policy, however, would presumably expect to see a checkmark by the any auto or non-owned autos box as well, since under AS 28.22.101(c) personal policy coverage extends to a motor vehicle whether owned or not owned by the person. The Nageaks argue that by offering some non-owned vehicle coverage, Progressive committed itself to meet the statutory requirements of a personal motor vehicle liability policy. But they marshal little support for this proposition. In contrast, Progressive points out that we have characterized, in dicta, an identical Progressive policy as an owner's policy. [12] And Progressive cites persuasive precedent from the Idaho Supreme Court, upholding the validity of the Progressive insurance policy and rejecting an argument similar to the Nageaks'. [13] The Nageaks argue that a legislative intent to close gaps in insurance coverage supports their claim. They leave us unconvinced, however, that the legislature intended to cabin insurance policy coverage into narrow statutorily defined categories unless explicitly labeled otherwise. The plain language of AS 28.22.311 makes clear that the Progressive policy need only meet the requirements of an owner's policy under AS 28.22.101(a). We therefore turn to the question of whether the policy, by its own terms, provides coverage for Joseph's accident.