Direct Auto Ins. Co. v. Guiraccha

This case present question as to whether trial court properly granted plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that certain uninsured motorist (UM) provisions of plaintiff’s policy did not cover injuries sustained by insured’s son, who was hit by hit-and-run driver while riding his bicycle. Trial court found that policy did not provide coverage for son’s injuries because instant UM provisions applied only to individuals who were occupants in “insured vehicle.” Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, acknowledged that son’s injuries were not covered under instant policy provisions, but further found limitations contained in UM provisions that required son to be in vehicle in order to obtain coverage violated public policy, as well as legislative purpose behind section 143(a) of Insurance Code. In its petition for leave to appeal, plaintiff argued that section 143(a) does not specify that pedestrians must be included in UM coverage, and that section 143(a) requires UM coverage only for automobile operators and passengers of automobiles.