X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Steven Chalfant, the president of Construction Coordinator Inc., was injured in an accident while driving his personal vehicle, a 1994 Infiniti J30. At the time, Construction Coordinator was covered by a business automobile insurance policy issued by Truck Insurance Exchange. The policy included, by endorsement, coverage for uninsured and underinsured motorists. The UM/UIM endorsement covered any person designated on the policy or any other person driving a covered automobile. TIE denied Chalfant’s request for coverage under the UM/UIM provision, so Chalfant sued TIE for breach of contract. TIE, in its motion for summary judgment, asked for a declaratory judgment that it was not required to cover the accident. In an affidavit accompanying his response, Chalfant explained that at the time of the accident, he was driving the Infiniti in furtherance of both business and personal affairs. The trial court denied TIE’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Chalfant was entitled to coverage. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The court observes that the name of “Steven Chalfant” does not appear anywhere in the policy or the endorsements. As a result, Chalfant does not qualify as the “you” or the “designated person” discussed in the UM/UIM endorsement. Nor does he qualify as a family member under the endorsement. Nor does the Infiniti fall within the definition of what a “covered auto” is under the endorsement. There is no contention that the Infiniti was being used as a temporary substitute for the vehicle that was listed in the endorsement � a GMC Yukon. The only way it the Infiniti could be covered is if it was owned or leased by Construction Coordinator itself, which it was not. The court addresses Chalfant’s argument that he was furthering Construction Coordinator’s business affairs at the time of the accident. “We agree that this status would have afforded Chalfant liability coverage in the event that he had been the negligent party. However, the fact that liability coverage would apply to certain non-owned autos is no indication that UM/UIM coverage would be provided to the occupants of such non-owned autos. . . . Where only a corporation is named as an insured and no name is provided as a designated person in the UM/UIM endorsement, the policy has a certain and definite legal meaning which did not include coverage for occupants of a vehicle which was not owned or leased by the corporation.” Finally, the court confirms that a written rejection of UM/UIM insurance is not required for non-owned vehicles. OPINION:Hanks, J.; Nuchia, Keyes and Hanks, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.