Court Opinion

ID: 9626900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:27:12.808904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:50.944916
License: Public Domain

LIVERMORE, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree that an insurance contract cannot exclude uninsured motorist coverage, that such coverage must be allowed to the policy limits, and that such extended coverage was purchased in this case. Where I part company with the majority, however, is in its determination that the legislative purpose was to require more extensive coverage for a guest of an insured negligent driver, where his injury is the product of the combined negligence of both the insured driver and an uninsured driver, than would be provided the policy owner driver himself. Uninsured motorist coverage was designed to prevent an injured person from being unprotected. So long as the policy provides protection to the faultless for injury up to the policy limits, and those limits exceed the legislatively mandated minimum limits, the legislative purpose is served. *189Double protection in the instance of double negligence was not within the legislative purpose and thus should be a matter of contract between the insured and the insurer.