Low, Ball & Lynch’s
WEEKLY LAW RESUME
November
25, 2004 Issue By: Raymond
Coates
Uninsured Motorist Coverage -
Multiple Policies
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company
v. Roberto Ruiz
Court of Appeal, Sixth District
(November 5, 2025)
When a motorist is injured outside of his vehicle, issues are raised about
the entitlement to coverage for uninsured motorist coverage, as well as whether
multiple policies apply. This case tackled those issues.
Cristobol Tavares was driving a Toyota Camry and struck a pickup truck
driven by Ruiz and then a van owned by Group Manufacturing Services, Inc., of
Ruiz received workers' compensation benefits and recovered from the driver
of the vehicle that struck him. He further made claim for underinsured
motorist benefits from American States Insurance Company, which insured his
employer's vehicle, and Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, which insured the
Group Manufacturing van. Both policies provided $1 million in
underinsured motorist benefits. Both denied the claim.
This declaratory relief action was filed to determine whether either policy
provided coverage for the claim. The trial court determined that Ruiz was
not occupying his van at the time of the accident and thus was not covered
under the UM provisions of the American States policy. The trial court
found that Ruiz was insured under the Atlantic Mutual policy based upon his
closeness to that vehicle and assisting someone out of the vehicle.
Atlantic Mutual appealed, as did Ruiz.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. As to the Atlantic Mutual policy, Ruiz
had to qualify as an insured as defined in that policy. It defined the
term as "anyone occupying a covered vehicle," and
"occupying" was defined as "in, upon, getting in, on, out, or
off the vehicle." The only way in which Ruiz qualified as an insured
was whether he was "upon" the vehicle.
Going to dictionaries, the Court concluded the term "upon" meant
in close proximity to the vehicle. The Court noted the Atlantic Mutual
policy did not limit coverage to those using the vehicle. The Court
looked to the uninsured motorist statute, Insurance Code section 11580.2, and
determined that the definition of "insured" as set forth in the
statute did not require the person to have been using the insured vehicle with
permission.
The Court stated Ruiz was adjacent to the Group Manufacturing van when
struck. He was attempting to assist the passenger and speak to the van's
driver regarding the accident. The Court concluded that he was therefore
"upon" the van and qualified as an insured within the meaning of the
Atlantic Mutual UM coverage provisions.
As to the American States UM endorsement, the Court felt Ruiz had
temporarily abandoned the van he had been driving. He was some distance
from that vehicle when injured. The Court stated he was no longer
"upon" the vehicle in a physical sense. Thus, he did not
qualify as an "insured" within the meaning of the American States UM
endorsement.
The judgment was affirmed.
COMMENT
This case interpreted policy language which applies to one who was not the
named insured. It contains a long discussion of the cases that cover this
issue.
____
To order a printed version of this analysis,
or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission.
Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000,
[email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a
complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a
Professional Corporation, with offices in