Court Opinion

ID: 9737717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:32:59.983691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.886389
License: Public Domain

HERNDON, J.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment as to Factory Mutual but I disagree with the opinion of the majority with respect to the liability of respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange under its contract of insurance with appellant Frederick, the named insured. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in my opinion because it correctly decides that appellant is validly and effectively excluded from indemnity coverage for his own personal injuries.

*786
Statement of Issues

The determinative questions presented by this appeal with respect to respondent Farmers are clear-cut and may be stated and answered very simply:
First, does the law of California permit an insurance carrier to exclude liability to the insured for his own bodily injuries from the coverage of a policy of automobile insurance? Yes, section 16454 of the Vehicle Code expressly authorizes this specific exclusion and California precedents are consistent with the decisions of other jurisdictions which uniformly recognize the validity and effectiveness of policy provisions limiting coverage to this extent.
Secondly, does the insurance contract here involved effectively invoke this legally permissible limitation upon the extent of its coverage ? Yes, it plainly provides in simple language that “This policy does not apply ... to bodily injury to the insured. ’ ’
In Part I of the contract under the heading “Exclusions Under Part I,” the following provision appears: “This policy does not apply ... to bodily injury to the insured . . .” Appellant contends (1) that this exclusionary provision does not apply in this case because Edwards, the driver, is an additional insured under the policy and entitled to its protection; and (2) that the exclusion is contrary to public policy and “is invalid and void under Vehicle Code section 16451. ’ ’
Although the majority opinion expressly refrains from deciding that such an exclusionary provision is invalid if expressed with sufficient clarity, I deem it appropriate to indicate the reasons for my conclusion that appellant’s contentions in this regard are untenable.
California Law Provides That a Motor Vehicle Policy Need Not Cover Any Liability for Injury to the Insured.
As noted in Atlantic Nat. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 65 Cal.2d 100, 107 [52 Cal.Rptr. 569, 416 P.2d 801], former Vehicle Code section 415, now Vehicle Code sections 16450 et seq., defined not only the persons who must be covered by every motor vehicle liability policy issued in this state, but also the risks which must be covered. “Thus interpreted, the section appears to prohibit insurance policies from excluding liability to a person who is injured by the negligence of an insured driver unless such an exclusion is permitted by some other provision of law. [Citing Vehicle Code section 16454.] ” That is to say, liability to an injured person may be excluded only *787to the extent permitted by law but to that extent such exclusion does not constitute a violation of public policy.
As originally added by Statutes 1929, chapter 259, section 2, page 564, the predecessor section of present section 16454 provided for only two permissible exclusions; i.e., the carrier was not required to insure (1) against liability for injuries to persons whose injuries were covered by any workmen’s compensation law, and (2) against liability for damage to property of others where the property was in charge of the insured or the insured’s employees.1
These two permissible exclusions were retained in all later amendments to the section and in 1937 an additional exclusion relating to 11injury to the assured” was expressly authorized. (Stats. 1937, ch. 840, § 5, p. 2356.) To me the conclusion is unavoidable that this additional statutory provision was designed and intended to permit contractual exclusion of the named insured from coverage for his own injuries resulting from the operation of the described vehicle whether by himself or by another with his permission.
Section 16454, effective at all times material to this case, provides: “Any motor vehicle liability policy need not cover any liability for injury to the assured or any liability of the assured assumed by or imposed upon the assured under any workmen’s compensation law nor any liability for damage to property in charge of the assured or the assured’s employees or agents.”
It is to be noted that the sections immediately preceding section 16454 clearly indicate that by “the assured” the Legislature definitely had in mind the person to whom the policy is issued rather than someone who might become an additional insured by reason of using a vehicle owned by the *788assured with the latter’s permission. Thus, section 16450 at the time of the accident here involved provided:
“A ‘motor vehicle liability policy,’ as used in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this Division, means an owner’s policy or an operator’s policy or both, of liability insurance, certified as provided in Section 16431 as proof of ability to respond in damages, issued by an insurance carrier authorized to transact such business in this State to or for the benefit of the person named therein as assured.” (Italics added.) Similarly section 16451 provided:
“An owner’s policy of liability insurance shall ... (b) Insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any described motor vehicle with the express or implied permission of said assured, . . .” (Italics added.)
Although it might appear too fundamental to require express observation, it is important to remember that by definition a “liability policy” is not a “health and accident policy,” i.e., it does not provide compensation for injuries, per se, but merely provides indemnity coverage for persons who have become liable for injuries to others. In the abstract many persons may be potential “insureds” under a liability policy but in practice “the insured” will be the person or persons against whom liability is being asserted in any given instance. For example, the owner of an automobile holding an owner’s policy of liability insurance is always “the insured” when he is operating the automobile himself, or when his agent or employee is operating it, or when liability is being asserted against him under section 171502 by reason of the operation of the automobile by another with his permission. On the other hand, the owner’s agents or third parties to whom he may give permission to operate the vehicle will be “insureds” only when liability is being asserted against them as the result of their own actual operation of the vehicle.
To contend that the Legislature intended by section 16454 to provide only that a motor vehicle liability policy need not cover any liability of any insured for injuries he inflicted on himself is to impute to this body the desire to guard against the impossible. If the party injured is also “the insured,” in the sense that his is the liability which is being asserted and to *789which the carrier is being asked to respond, no legislative act would be required to demonstrate that no recovery under such conditions would be possible. If the limitation provided in section 16454 means anything, it means that a motor vehicle liability policy need not cover any third person’s liability for injury to the named insured. It certainly does not mean that the policy need not cover the named insured’s liability to himself for his own injuries or the liability of a permissive user to himself for his own injuries.
Recognizing this fact, appellant herein does not contend that such an interpretation may be given to section 16454 but rather argues that the additional provision added by the 1937 amendment did not actually change the prior act and should be considered merely as a meaningless and ungrammatical extension of the previously authorized exclusion relating to liability for injuries covered by the workmen’s compensation law. That is, appellant contends that when section 16454 speaks of “injury to the assured,” it means injuries covered by the workmen’s compensation law.
In my view, for the reasons heretofore discussed, such construction is logically impossible since the workmen’s compensation law, like a policy of liability insurance, covers only the liability of an “insured” for injuries sustained by others, not by himself. In addition, the clause in section 16454 providing that a motor vehicle liability policy need not cover ‘1 any liability of the assured assumed by or imposed upon the assured under any workmen’s compensation law” is in itself sufficient to fully and intelligibly cover this limitation.
Appellant argues that the editorial caption “Workmen’s Compensation” preceding the legislative language of section 16454 requires that the provisions of that section be construed as limited to the subject matter indicated by the caption.
This argument is fallacious for two reasons: First, the suggested construction is grammatically and logically impossible. Manifestly the provision of section 16454 relating to “liability for damage to property in charge of the assured or the assured’s employees or agents” has nothing whatever to do with the workmen’s compensation law. Secondly, the caption is not a part of the legislative enactment. (See Stats. 1937, ch. 840, p. 2356.) As stated in paragraph 5 of the preface to volume 66 of West’s California Codes, “The Code as enacted by the Legislature did not contain section headings. ”
On the question of public policy and the proper interpretation of section 16454, the following language used in the *790recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 242 Cal.App.2d 227, 234 [51 Cal.Rptr. 724], is equally apposite here:
“Section 415 subdivision (e) (now § 16454) as in effect at the time of the accident provided: ‘Any liability policy issued hereunder need not cover any liability for injury to the assured or any liability of the assured assumed by or imposed upon said assured under any workmen’s compensation law. . . .’ (Italics added.) Thus the above exclusion from coverage was not violative of any public policy; indeed it was expressly sanctioned by the very section which required coverage for permissive users. Absent any statute or public policy prohibiting them, provisions of an automobile liability policy excluding from coverage liability for bodily injury or death of a named insured have been held valid and effective and have been enforced according to their terms. [Citations.] ”
In the Travelers Indem. Co. decision, the court was required to determine whether Colonial Insurance Company was obligated to defend and indemnify David Ross and Jasper Payne, permissive users of the vehicle in question, in an action brought against them by Ralph Ross, the named insured, for personal injuries sustained by their alleged negligent use of the vehicle. The exclusionary words in Colonial’s policy were found in their agreement to indemnify the insured from claims against him “if such claims are made on account of (1) Coverage A—Bodily Injury or Death suffered by any person or persons, other than the insured or his employees, as the result of an accident occurring while this policy is in force; . . (Italics added in part.) The court in Travelers Indem. Co. disposed of this question in the following manner (p. 235):
“We reject as unmeritorious Travelers’ arguments that the exclusionary provision is without effect. These are advanced in the alternative from the factual basis that Ralph Ross is the Insured named in the declarations of Colonial’s policy and that, as already noted in the policy’s insuring agreements, Colonial agrees to indemnify the Insured named in the declarations ‘and herein called the insured’ against the loss thereafter indicated. Travelers argues that the policy repeatedly distinguishes between ‘named insured’ and ‘insured’ and that whether the terms are considered as interchangeable or totally distinct in either event the exclusionary provision does not apply. The argument may be summarized thusly: First, if the policy does distinguish between ‘named insured’ and ‘insured,’ the exclusion is inoperative because had Colonial *791intended to exclude coverage for Ralph Ross’ injuries it should have used the language ‘other than the named insured’ (italics added) and failing to do so intended to exclude coverage only for injuries of ‘insured’ (e.g., David Ross and Payne). Secondly, if the two terms are used interchangeably, then Colonial intended its policy to cover Ralph Ross’ liability in the first place, that the exclusion was operative only where Ralph was liable and that it was not intended to apply where an additional insured ‘might come into the picture by operation of law. ’ The arguments are completely specious and lead to absurd results. An examination of the insuring agreement set forth above satisfies us that Ralph was always in fact the named insured under the policy and that the italicized language of exclusion refers to Ms claims for injuries.
“We are of the opinion that the policy excluded from coverage claims by its named insured Ralph Ross. In view of this conclusion we need not discuss the issue raised by Travelers as to whether Colonial’s coverage was primary or excess. ’ ’
By the same process of reasoning, I am convinced that the policy here under consideration clearly manifests the same intent to exclude recovery by the named insured for his own personal injuries as expressly permitted by section 16454 of the Vehicle Code.
A similar result was reached in Rollo v. California, State Automobile Assn., 159 Cal.App.2d 172 [323 P.2d 531], which dealt with that portion of section 16454 permitting a limitation in instances where the injuries involved were compensable under the workmen’s compensation law. Rollo and one Vanelli were coemployees of the Broadway Plumbing Company. Rollo was injured while a passenger in a car owned by Broadway and being driven by Vanelli. Rollo obtained a judgment against Vanelli and thereafter sought to enforce it against the insurance company that had issued a motor vehicle liability policy to Broadway covering the automobile driven by Vanelli. Rollo argued that since Vanelli was an additional insured under the policy, and was not Rollo’s employer, the exception regarding injuries covered by the workmen’s compensation law should not apply. Such contention was rejected. The court held that under the omnibus clause in the policy, Vanelli was an additional insured as to the whole world, except that there was excepted from the whole world an injured fellow employee injured by Vanelli when both were acting in the course of their employment with the named insured, and such exception *792was not violative of the spirit or intent of the financial responsibility laws.
In the case at bench, it may be conceded that Edwards, as operator of the vehicle involved in the accident, is an additional insured whose liability for injuries to everyone except the named insured, is covered by the policy in question, but the indicated exception is expressly permitted by section 16454 and therefore is not violative of the spirit or intent of the financial responsibility laws.
The decision in Atlantic Nat. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, supra, 65 Cal.2d 100, does not undertake to determine the proper construction to be given to section 16454. It was sufficient to the determination of the issue there presented to hold that a general provision designed to exclude coverage of liability for injuries to the occupants of the car was void and could not be construed as limited to the permissible exclusion of the named insured in the fortuitous event that he happened to be an occupant.3 In the instant case “the insured” is expressly excluded whether injured in or out of the car and, as we have shown, the provision can have no possible relevant meaning other than that it is restricted to the named insured.
I am in full sympathy with judicially enunciated rules of public policy which favor the extension of monetary protection to persons who are injured in automobile accidents through no fault of their own. This is quite appropriate when the right to such protection is reasonably grounded. In the present case, however, the Legislature has declared the applicable rule of public policy in such clear language that our failure faithfully to apply it would be impermissible for obvious reasons. As stated in Wisdom v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., 211 Cal.App.2d 602, 605 [27 Cal.Rptr. 599] :
“We recognize that the purpose of financial responsibility laws is to give monetary protection to the persons lawfully using the highways, and that they are to be construed liberally. [Citations.] This proposition, however, does not vitiate the elementary principle that the judicial function is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance con*793tained in the statute, not to insert what has been omitted, or omit what has been inserted. ’ ’
It appears that contractual limitations upon coverage of the precise species here involved have been held valid and effective by numerous decisions from various states of the union. The following statement is found in volume 7 of Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, section 4409:
“The results reached by the courts in situations where the named insured is injured by the negligence of a person operating the insured automobile, such operator claiming protection under the omnibus clause, must be considered with reference to the policy provisions themselves. In many policies which have been issued, a direct policy exception prohibits recovery for injury or death of a named insured, and where such an exclusion is contained in the policy, it is enforced according to its terms. ’’
Appleman cites in support of the foregoing text decisions from the states of Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Virginia and the District of Columbia. In addition, other cases not cited in Appleman upholding this type of exclusion are: Munsert v. Farmers Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1938) 229 Wis. 581 [281 N.W. 671]; Perkins v. Perkins (Mo.App. 1955) 284 S.W.2d 603; and Havlik v. Bittner (1956) 272 Wis. 71 [74 N.W.2d 798],
The Contract Here Involved Clearly Expresses the Intent to Exclude Coverage for Injuries Suffered by the Insured.
Turning now to the proper interpretation of the insurance policy issued by Farmers in the instant case, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the word “insured” as used in the policy is a word of art and one that has a definite contractual meaning. However, for this very reason I would give it the meaning expressly specified in the contract rather than another meaning not to be found therein. The policy explicitly states that the unqualified word “insured” may identify either the named insured, a permissive user or any person legally responsible for the use of the nonowned automobile by the named insured.
It should be noted that the language of the exclusionary provision here involved utilizes essentially the same terminology as is found in section 16454, i.e., “Any motor vehicle liability policy need not cover any liability for injury to the assured. ...” Secondly, it must be borne in mind, as previously discussed, that no exclusion under a liability policy is *794required to prevent a person from seeking to establish his own liability for his own injuries. Such an effort would constitute a contradiction in terms and would need no assistance from the policy to ensure its failure.
The majority opinion determines that the “insured” in this expression means “the driver” and that the exclusion is intended to guarantee that the carrier shall not be required to indemnify the driver for his own liability to himself arising from his own injuries. I fail to apprehend why such an utterly needless exclusion would be placed in the policy. To my mind it is clear that this exclusion was intended to utilize the limitation expressly authorized by section 16454 and to exclude from coverage any liability of the driver for injuries sustained by the named insured.
I can conceive of no instance in which such an exclusionary provision would be required to prevent an additional insured from seeking indemnity for his own liability for his own injuries. Neither can I imagine a situation in which an exclusion would be required to prevent a named insured from seeking indemnity for his own liability for injuries sustained while he personally was operating his automobile. It seems unquestionable to me that this exclusion is designed to cover the only situation in which it would be relevant, i.e., where the named insured is seeking to establish the liability of an additional insured for injuries sustained by the named insured by reason of the additional insured’s negligent operation of the vehicle.
The Factory Mutual Policy Does Not Extend Coverage to the Type oe Vehicle Here Involved.
I concur in the judgment in favor of Factory Mutual, not because there was substantial conflicting evidence on the question whether the pickup truck was or was not a commercial vehicle, but because the definitions contained in the policy in question clearly indicate that such a vehicle is not included within the policy’s definition of “private passenger vehicle” regardless of its use. Immediately following the provisions in the policy limiting the persons insured thereunder with respect to a nonowned automobile to “ (1) the named insured, (2) any relative, but only with respect to a private passenger automobile or trailer, ’ ’ these clear definitions are set forth:
“‘[Pjrivate passenger automobile’ means a four wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep type automobile; . . . ‘utility automobile’ means an automobile other than a *795farm automobile, with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type not used for business or commercial purposes. ’ ’
Since the policy clearly placed the vehicle involved in the instant action in the separate classification of “utility vehicle” and since this class of vehicles was not included in the coverage extended to relatives of the named insured when using nonowned cars, I agree that such coverage may not be extended by any abstract judicial determination of what type vehicle might he included within the definition of “private passenger vehicle” when the policy itself does not speak definitively on the subject.
The petition of the plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 30, 1966.

‘ ‘ ‘Motor vehicle liability policy,’ as used in this act, shall be taken to mean a policy of liability insurance issued, by an insurance carrier authorized to transact business in this state, to the person therein named as insured, which policy shall designate, by explicit description or by appropriate reference, all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is intended to be granted by said policy, and shall insure the insured named therein, and any other person using or responsible for the use of any such motor vehicle, with the consent, express or implied, of such insured, against loss from the liability imposed upon such insured by law or upon such other person for injury to, or death of, any person, other than such person or persons as may he covered, as respects such injury or death hy any workmen’s compensation law, or damage to property, except property of others in charge of the insured or the insured’s employees growing out of the maintenance, use or operation of any such motor vehicle in the United States of America; ...” (Italics added.)

Section 17150 provides: “Every owner of a motor veMele is liable and responsible for the death of or injury to person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle, in the business of the owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of the owner, and the negligence of such person shall be imputed to the owner for all purposes of civil damages. ’ ’

The quotation from the policy in the Armstrong ease contained in footnote 3 of the majority opinion does not appear in the Supreme Court’s decision. However, assuming that it is accurate and that the Supreme Court relied thereon, the exclusion there made was merely that the policy did not provide coverage for the liability of the renter or driver for injuries sustained by occupants. As indicated, as a general exclusion it was void and as to the renter himself no liability could attach against him for his own injuries.