Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

 Issue:  April 8, 2004    By: Raymond Coates

Uninsured Motorist - Bodily Injury Claim

        Mercury Insurance Company v. Francisco Ayala

Court of Appeal, Second District

(March 17, 2026)

The issue of whether a claim for loss of consortium qualifies as a "bodily injury" claim and whether separate limits apply to such a claim has been previously considered.  This case again considers those issues.

Maria Medina was struck by a car driven by an uninsured motorist.  Medina and her husband, Francisco Ayala, made claim under the uninsured motorist coverage of their policy.  Ayala's claim was for loss of consortium.  Mercury Insurance Company denied the claim because Medina had received workers' compensation benefits in excess of the policy limit of the uninsured motorist coverage.  Mercury instituted a declaratory relief action, and Medina cross-complained for declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith.  Mercury moved for summary judgment on the complaint.  The trial court granted the motion.  Judgment was entered in favor of Mercury.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  It noted that the limit of liability stated in the declarations of the Mercury policy provided a limit to "each person" for all damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person in any one accident.  The policy then went on to state that claims for care, loss of consortium and injury to any interpersonal relationship was part of the single limit of liability for bodily injury.  Mercury contended that there was thus only a single bodily injury limit available for this uninsured motorist coverage claim.

The Court agreed that the language was unambiguous.  Under the plain language, the per-person limit applied to both claims.  The Court noted that prior cases had construed similar language and had found the language to be unambiguous.  Further, in reviewing Insurance Code section 11580.2, which set out the minimum uninsured motorist coverage language which every policy must contain, the Court noted the statute required limits equal to the limits of liability for bodily injury.  This policy complied with that requirement.  The section further specified that the limits could be no less than the financial responsibility limits.  Here, the policy again complied.  Finally, there was no case which held that a definition of "per-person limits," which included loss of consortium, was in violation of the statute.

The underlying principle of this rule was that when one person is injured or killed in an accident, the single injury limit applies, regardless of the number of persons damaged as a result of the accident.  California case law has held that loss of consortium is not a physical injury to the second spouse.  Rather, it is an injury that arises out of bodily injury to the spouse who has been injured.  The Court felt insurance policies which limit coverage to include loss of consortium claims in the per-person limit do not refuse to recognize the cause of action.  Such policies merely limit the amount of coverage available from such consequences.  Further, while it is possible that loss of consortium could result in emotional distress sufficient to trigger physical symptoms, that did not convert a loss of consortium claim into a bodily injury claim for purposes of the Insurance Code.  It is principally a form of mental suffering.  The Court noted that this view had been followed in other areas of insurance law, as well.  The Court thus felt that this application was consistent with the legislative intent that an uninsured motorist claimant would get the same amount of coverage as one who had a bodily injury claim.

The judgment was affirmed.

COMMENT

This view is consistent with the majority view in the United States.  Absent unusual or different language, this is the view that will probably be followed in most cases deciding 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 San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.