Opinion
No. 95CA0432
Decided March 7, 1996 Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED October 15, 1996
Appeal from the District Court of Douglas County, Honorable Thomas J. Curry, Judge, No. 92CV249.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Levy Lambdin, P.C., Marc R. Levy, Scott P. Landry, Linda A. Battalora, Englewood, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary H. Hemminger, P.C., Gary H. Hemminger, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
In this declaratory judgment action, defendant, Renee W. Stein, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), determining that defendant could not stack uninsured motorist benefits from multiple automobile insurance policies issued by State Farm. We reverse and remand.
In September 1991, Renee Stein's husband, Joel Stein, was killed when he was struck by an uninsured motorist while riding a bicycle. It was stipulated that the uninsured motorist was totally at fault.
At the time of the accident, Renee and Joel Stein had five separate automobile insurance policies with State Farm that each provided $100,000 per person uninsured motorist coverage. Each policy also contained "anti-stacking" provisions that limited State Farm's total liability if the insured was a pedestrian, was occupying his or her own vehicle, or was occupying another vehicle.
Renee Stein sought $500,000 from State Farm for herself and as guardian for four of her children (the insureds) as damages resulting from Joel Stein's death. State Farm paid the insureds $100,000, representing the amount it contended was available after application of the "anti-stacking" provisions of the policies.
The insureds then filed a demand for arbitration under the terms of the policy. State Farm responded by filing a complaint in the district court seeking declaratory relief to determine the applicability of the "anti-stacking" provisions. Arguing that arbitration was a condition precedent to litigation, the insureds filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the district court. The case then proceeded to arbitration and the insureds were awarded $454,000 minus the $100,000 already paid by State Farm. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment thereon.
State Farm appealed, and a division of this court held that whether the "anti-stacking" provisions applied was a non-arbitratable issue. The judgment confirming the arbitration award was therefore reversed and the cause was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stein, 886 P.2d 326 (Colo.App. 1994).
On remand, the district court found that the term "pedestrian," as it was used in the "anti-stacking" provisions of the uninsured motorist portion of the policies, was ambiguous. However, it then concluded that "when that term is construed within the context of the coverage language, [Joel Stein] was a pedestrian at the time he received his injuries." Thus, it determined that the policies' "anti-stacking" provisions applied. Of the insureds, only Renee Stein appeals the trial court's determination to this court.
I. Construction of Insurance Policies
Stein contends that the term "pedestrian," as it is used in the uninsured motorist section of the policy, is ambiguous. She further argues that because an ambiguous term must be construed against the drafter, the "anti-stacking" provisions do not apply. We disagree that the term "pedestrian" is ambiguous; however, under the circumstances presented here, we agree that the "anti-stacking" provisions of the policies do not apply to her claim for benefits.
The interpretation of a contract for insurance is an issue of law that may be reviewed de novo. As with any contract, we first look to the language of the policy to ascertain the intent of the parties. Union Insurance Co. v. Houtz, 883 P.2d 1057 (Colo. 1994).
Technical construction of an insurance contract should be avoided and the contract should be construed as it would be understood by persons of ordinary intelligence. Simon v. Shelter General Insurance Co., 842 P.2d 236 (Colo. 1992). Words should be given their plain meaning according to common usage and strained interpretations should be avoided. Compton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 870 P.2d 545 (Colo.App. 1993).
Provisions seeking to limit coverage must be clearly expressed. In the absence of a clear expression of limitation, the insurance contract must be construed in favor of coverage. Tepe v. Rocky Mountain Hospital Medical Services, 893 P.2d 1323 (Colo.App. 1994).
Here, except for the declarations page, the five policies contain identical language. Each provides coverage when an insured sustains bodily injury "caused by accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle." (emphasis original) Each policy also contains "anti-stacking" provisions that limit the uninsured benefits available if the insured sustains bodily injury: (1) as a pedestrian; (2) while occupying the car listed on the declarations page of the policy; or (3) while occupying a car not owned by the insured, the insured's spouse, or any relative of the insured.
The only dispute here concerns the definition of "pedestrian." The term "pedestrian" is not defined in the general definitions or in the uninsured motorist section of the policies. However, in the preceding section of the policies concerning "no-fault" coverage, the term "pedestrian" is defined as "a person not occupying a motor vehicle or machine operated by a motor or engine." (emphasis original)
In contrast to this definition, the common meaning of the term "pedestrian" is "a person who travels on foot." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1664 (1969). Thus, if the term "pedestrian," as it is used in the "anti-stacking" provisions of the policies, is accorded its common meaning, then the "anti-stacking" provisions would not apply.
State Farm argues that the "anti-stacking" provisions must be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the policy. Accordingly, State Farm asserts that, for purposes of coverage, the term "pedestrian" encompasses any person not occupying a motor vehicle, including a bicyclist. We are not persuaded.
First, any intention that the "no-fault" definition of the term "pedestrian" was to be utilized with regard to uninsured motorist benefits is defeated by the language of the policies themselves. All words that are specifically defined in the policies are noted by boldface italics. Thus, while "pedestrian" is a defined term for purposes of "no-fault" coverage and is so noted by boldface italics in that section, it is not highlighted by boldface italics in the next section concerning uninsured motorist coverage. This difference implies that the definition of the term "pedestrian" to be used in connection with the "no-fault" section of the policies does not apply with regard to uninsured motorist benefits.
Second, the definition of the term "pedestrian" in the "no-fault" section of the policies is technical in nature in that it is based on the statutory definition of this term in the No-Fault Act. See § 10-4-703(9), C.R.S. (1994 Repl. Vol. 4A). That definition is intended to be expansive in nature specifying who may obtain no-fault benefits rather than, as here, who is restricted from obtaining benefits. See Tepe v. Rocky Mountain Hospital Medical Services, supra. Thus, the term "pedestrian" is not used in the same context in the two sections and serves different purposes.
Third, the use of three distinct categories in describing when uninsured motorist provisions under multiple policies may not be stacked suggests that stacking was to be limited in only those circumstances. While these three provisions can be read as an attempt by State Farm to prevent stacking in all circumstances, the contrary interpretation can also be made, especially given use of the undefined term "pedestrian" rather than an all-encompassing phrase such as "any person not occupying a motor vehicle."
Finally, we reject State Farm's argument that, because the requirements for uninsured motorist coverage are part of a comprehensive legislative scheme for the compensation of persons injured in automobile accidents, the terms used in uninsured motorist policies should be afforded the same definitions as those contained of the No-Fault Act, § 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S. (1994 Repl. Vol. 4A). More specifically, State Farm contends that the definition of "pedestrian" contained in § 10-4-703(9), C.R.S. (1994 Repl. Vol. 4A) of the No-Fault Act should apply to determinations of uninsured motorist insurance coverage under § 10-4-609, C.R.S. (1994 Repl. Vol. 4A). We disagree.
In Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Hull, 690 P.2d 227 (Colo. 1984), the supreme court held that "pedestrian" as defined in § 10-4-703(9) should be limited to its statutory definition of "any person not occupying or riding in or upon a motor vehicle or machine operated by a motor or engine." In so holding, the Trinity court overruled a more expansive definition of the term "pedestrian" which had been used by a division of this court in Smith v. Simpson, 648 P.2d 677 (Colo.App. 1982). See also Rose v. Allstate Insurance Co., 782 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1988) (following Trinity, limits definition of "pedestrian" to that contained in § 10-4-703(9)).
Under § 10-4-703, C.R.S. (1994 Repl. Vol. 4A) of the No-Fault Act, the definition of "pedestrian" is expressly limited to "this Part 7 [the No-Fault Act], unless the context otherwise requires. . . ." Thus, this language evinces a legislative intent that the definition of "pedestrian" contained in that section applies only to the No-Fault Act, and not to legislative provisions concerning uninsured motorist coverage.
In our view, the phrase "unless the context otherwise requires" does not suggest that the definitions contained in § 10-4-703 apply to all uninsured motorist coverage provisions. If such were the case, the language limiting the definitions to "this Part 7" would always be overridden by the exception. Had the General Assembly intended that the definition of "pedestrian" in § 10-4-703(g) would apply to all uninsured motorist coverage provisions, it could have said so plainly.
Moreover, nothing in the language of Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Hull, supra, or Rose v. Allstate Insurance Co., supra, indicates that the supreme court intended to provide a global definition which would apply to all persons injured in automobile accidents.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we conclude that the term "pedestrian" must be construed in accordance with its common meaning and that the "anti-stacking" provisions do not express a clear intention to limit coverage. Thus, the policies must be construed in favor of coverage. See Tepe v. Rocky Mountain Hospital Medical Services, supra.
II. Ambiguity in Insurance Policies
Even if we were to agree with the trial court that the term "pedestrian" in the policies is ambiguous, we would reach the same result.
Any ambiguities in the contract language must be construed against the drafter and in favor of the insured. Simon v. Shelter General Insurance Co., supra. A term is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Compton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra. In making this determination, the insurance policy as a whole must be examined. Wota v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 831 P.2d 1307 (Colo. 1992). Further, when an insurer seeks to restrict coverage, the limitation must be clearly expressed and written such that a reasonable lay person, by reading the policy, can understand the coverage provided. Tepe v. Rocky Mountain Hospital Medical Services, supra; Travelers Indemnity v. Howard Electric, 879 P.2d 431 (Colo.App. 1994).
Here, applying these rules of construction, even if we assume that the intended limitation of the anti-stacking provisions is not clearly expressed, we conclude that these provisions must be construed against State Farm and in favor of the Steins.
Accordingly, we also conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the "anti-stacking" provisions of the uninsured motorist section of the policies were applicable to Renee Stein's claim. Therefore, the judgment for $354,000 in favor of the insureds should be reinstated. See In re Arbitration between Lynch Three Ponds Co., 656 P.2d 51 (Colo.App. 1982) (those portions of an award which are severable from matters which go beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction are not void).
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the May 27, 1994 judgment against State Farm in the amount of $354,000.
JUDGE ROTHENBERG concurs.
JUDGE CASEBOLT dissents.