Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of Idaho
April 28, 2000, Filed
Docket No. 23981, 2000 Opinion No. 43
[*248] [**903] ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
This is an insurance policy interpretation case. Plaintiff Daniel Asevedo Martinez was injured in an automobile collision while on duty as a reserve police officer for the City of Rathdrum (City). He recovered a portion of his losses from worker's compensation and then filed a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of the City's insurance policy. The insurance [***2] company refused to pay the claim, contending that the injuries to Martinez were excluded from uninsured motorist coverage. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurance company, and Martinez appeals.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 3, 1994, Martinez was injured in a head-on collision with an uninsured motorist while on duty as a reserve police officer for the City. As a result of the accident, Martinez received extensive injuries which required prolonged hospitalization and physical therapy. Martinez collected partial compensation for his injuries under worker's compensation. In an attempt to recover the rest of his damages, he filed a claim with the City's insurance carrier under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy. The City's policy was underwritten by respondent Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP), and was sold to the City through the insurance agency of James E. Dickinson [*249] [**904] (Dickinson Insurance), which is also a respondent.
ICRMP based its denial of Martinez's claim on two exclusions to the policy: 1) injuries covered by worker's compensation, and 2) to employees of the insured. On May 9, 1995, Martinez and his wife [***3] filed a complaint against both respondents for denial of the claim, alleging several theories of liability. They argued that the exclusions from coverage were against public policy, and that the respondents had breached their contract of insurance with the City. They also claimed that Dickinson Insurance had negligently failed to provide the City with adequate insurance, and that Martinez was injured as a third-party beneficiary of the City's policy. Additionally, they sought damages for Martinez's injuries under the policy. Finally, Martinez argued that the exclusions violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA).
On October 23, 1995, defendant ICRMP filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Martinez's injuries were excluded from coverage by the terms of the policy. While the district court found that the policy was ambiguous as to the uninsured motorist coverage, it nevertheless granted partial summary judgment for ICRMP and Dickinson Insurance on the breach of contract and UCSPA causes of action. However, the district court reasoned that there were issues of material fact as to the claims regarding the uninsured motorist coverage.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
134 Idaho 247 *; 999 P.2d 902 **; 2000 Ida. LEXIS 41 ***
DANIEL ASEVEDO MARTINEZ, JR. and NANCY MARTINEZ, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IDAHO COUNTIES RECIPROCAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ("ICRMP"), a reciprocal company domiciled Boise, Idaho and its producer JAMES D. DICKINSON INSURANCE, INC. d/b/a DICKINSON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendants-Respondents.
Subsequent History: [***1] Petition for Rehearing Denied April 28, 2000. Released for Publication May 22, 2000. As Corrected July 6, 2000.
Prior History: Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. James F. Judd, District Judge.
This Opinion Substituted on Denial of Rehearing for Withdrawn Opinion of December 20, 1999, Previously Reported at: 1999 Ida. LEXIS 136.
Disposition: The decision of the district court is vacated and remanded.
coverage, uninsured, underinsured motorist coverage, insured, uninsured motorist coverage, summary judgment, ambiguous, illusory, legal responsibility, uninsured motorist, bodily injury, claimant, underinsured motorist, district court, workers' compensation, injuries, void, insurance contract, provide coverage, use of a vehicle, city vehicle, provisions, employees, policies, riding, hired
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Judgments, General Overview, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Evidentiary Considerations, Motions for Summary Judgment, Opposing Materials, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Contracts Law, Defenses, Ambiguities & Mistakes, Insurance Law, Policy Interpretation, Ambiguous Terms, Reasonable Expectations, Reasonable Person, Coverage, Uninsured Motorists, Underinsured Motorists, Mandatory Coverage, Rejection of Coverage, Public Policy Violations