Anita Rivera v. American Family Insurance, 2012COA175 (October 11, 2012)

Sometimes good law goes bad. It gets on a motorcycle, crashes and kills a passenger. And then the Supreme Court holds that the passenger was only covered by the liability portion of an insurance policy, but not the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) portion of the same policy. And then the legislature amends the law that the Supreme Court interpreted to permit “same policy” exclusions. Once again, a passenger is injured and is paid under the liability portion, but denied UM/UIM coverage. Did that Supreme Court case go bad? No. Here, as in the companion case, the types of covered events an insurer can validly restrict include “same policy” exclusions that do not violate stacking amendments or the prohibition on setoffs. Nor are such exclusions contrary to public policy, because the new statute does not require full indemnification. Thus, the denial of coverage was upheld.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2297-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8700&courtid=1

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Insurance, Personal Injury, Torts

One response to “Anita Rivera v. American Family Insurance, 2012COA175 (October 11, 2012)

  1. These opinions are ripe for certiorari petitions. The opinions did not address DeHerrera, which is bothersome and creates a conflict that needs resolution.

    Like

Brief this Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s