Opinion
C082935
12-18-2017
LAUREN VAN LAAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-UIC-2015-0009194)
Plaintiff and appellant Lauren Van Laar challenges the trial court's entry of judgment following its order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings of defendant and respondent Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company (Nationwide). The sole question on appeal is one of statutory construction: Whether Insurance Code section 11580.2 requires a written waiver to reduce uninsured motorist coverage where the coverage offered is less than the policy's bodily injury liability limits but exceeds $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. We conclude the trial court correctly found no written waiver is required in that circumstance. Therefore, we shall affirm the judgment.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Insurance Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Van Laar was involved in an automobile accident with a third party who had no insurance available to compensate her for her injuries. Van Laar sought compensation from Nationwide, the insurance provider for a policy on which she was listed as an insured driver. The Nationwide insurance policy provided liability coverage of $1,000,000 and uninsured motorist coverage of $300,000, as set forth in an attached schedule. Van Laar demanded liability coverage limits of $1,000,000 from Nationwide, but Nationwide would provide her only $300,000.
Van Laar sued Nationwide for declaratory relief, seeking a judicial declaration that Nationwide owed Van Laar insurance coverage of $1,000,000 for the injuries she sustained in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Nationwide moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing it was entitled to judgment on the pleadings based on the plain language of section 11580.2. The trial court granted Nationwide's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and entered judgment in its favor.
DISCUSSION
Section 11580.2, subdivision (a)(1) provides in pertinent part: "No policy of bodily injury liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle, . . . shall be issued or delivered in this state . . . unless the policy contains, or has added to it by endorsement, a provision with coverage limits at least equal to the limits specified in subdivision (m) and in no case less than the financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 16056 of the Vehicle Code insuring the insured, the insured's heirs or legal representative for all sums within the limits that he, she, or they, as the case may be, shall be legally entitled to recover as damages for bodily injury or wrongful death from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. The insurer and any named insured, prior to or subsequent to the issuance or renewal of a policy, may, by agreement in writing, in the form specified in paragraph (2) or paragraph (3), (1) delete the provision covering damage caused by an uninsured motor vehicle completely, or (2) delete the coverage when a motor vehicle is operated by a natural person or persons designated by name, or (3) agree to provide the coverage in an amount less than that required by subdivision (m) but not less than the financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 16056 of the Vehicle Code ." (Italics added.)
As relevant here, Vehicle Code section 16056 provides that for an insurance policy to be effective, it must provide that if an accident results in bodily injury or death, coverage will be "not less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to that limit for one person, to a limit of not less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident . . . ." (Veh. Code, § 16056, subd. (a).) --------
Subdivision (m) of section 11580.2 provides that "[c]overage provided under an uninsured motorist endorsement or coverage shall be offered with coverage limits equal to the limits of liability for bodily injury in the underlying policy of insurance, but shall not be required to be offered with limits in excess of the following amounts: [¶] (1) A limit of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident. [¶] (2) Subject to the limit for one person set forth in paragraph (1), a limit of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident." (Italics added.)
We previously interpreted the meaning of section 11580.2, subdivisions (a) and (m), in Enterprise Insurance Co. v. Mulleague (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 528 (Enterprise). The appellant in Enterprise claimed section 11580.2, subdivision (m) should be read as requiring the limits for uninsured motorist coverage to be " 'equal to the limits of liability for bodily injury in the underlying policy of insurance,' " the same interpretation Van Laar argues for here. (Enterprise, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 535.) However, we explained that such a "reading violated Justice Frankfurter's three rules for mastering the meaning of a statute: '(1) Read the statute; (2) read the statute; (3) read the statute!' " (Ibid.) For, "a statute must be read as a whole and so construed that each part is given effect." (Ibid.) There would be no reason to include the specific limit amounts in subdivision (m) of section 11580.2 if the Legislature had intended that the policy limits always be the uninsured motorist coverage limits as well. "Construed as a whole, this statute means that uninsured motorist coverage must equal the limits of liability if those limits exceed the $15,000/$30,000 minimum required under the financial responsibility statute but only up to a maximum of $30,000 per person or $60,000 per accident." (Enterprise, at p. 536.)
Thus, we held, "the only plausible interpretation of the statute that gives effect to all of its terms is that where an insurer fails to obtain a written waiver of uninsured motorist coverage, the automobile insurance policy will then be construed by operation of law to provide uninsured motorist benefits in an amount equal to the bodily injury liability limits of the policy up to but not exceeding $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident. In cases such as this where the statutorily imposed obligations are clear, we may not engage in forced construction or adopt an interpretation which imposes a requirement not contained in the statute." (Enterprise, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 536.)
Van Laar has not provided us with authority or argument that persuades us to construe the statute differently than we did in Enterprise. Her attempts to factually distinguish this case from Enterprise are unavailing because statutory construction is a legal and not a factual determination. (California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 699.) And her reliance on Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700 for the proposition that "[s]ubdivision (m) of section 11580.2 provides that the insurer must offer uninsured motorist coverage with limits equal to the bodily injury liability coverage in the underlying policy" is not convincing. (Id. at p. 707, fn. 8.) The meaning of subdivision (m) of section 11580.2 was not before the court in that case; rather, it considered whether a waiver of uninsured motorist coverage was required per vehicle or only per policy. (Smith, supra, at pp. 711-717.) " ' "It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered." ' " (McWilliams v. City of Long Beach (2013) 56 Cal.4th 613, 626.)
In light of our interpretation of section 11580.2, subdivisions (a) and (m), we conclude the trial court did not err in awarding judgment on the pleadings to Nationwide. Contrary to her allegations, in the absence of a written waiver, Van Laar was statutorily entitled to coverage "in an amount equal to the bodily injury liability limits of the policy up to but not exceeding $ 30,000 per person and $ 60,000 per accident." (Enterprise, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 536.) Thus, no written waiver was required to provide contractual uninsured motorist coverage of $300,000, which exceeds both the statutory floor and the statutory ceiling, rather than the underlying policy liability limits of $1,000,000.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)
BUTZ, J. We concur: RAYE, P. J. BLEASE, J.