Essentia Insurance Co. v. Hughes.
2024 CO 17. No. 22SC450. Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Benefit—CRS § 10-4-609— DeHerrera v. Sentry Insurance Co.v, 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001)—Specialty Antique/Classic-Car Policies—Adjunctive Specialty Antique/Classic-Car Policies Functioning in Tandem With Standard Regular-Use-Vehicle Policies.
March 25, 2024
The Supreme Court determined that an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) limitation deserves different treatment when it is found in a specialty antique/classic-car policy that contains certain terms. More specifically, the Court held that a specialty antique/classic-car policy that requires an insured to have a regular-use vehicle and to insure it through a standard policy that provides UM/UIM coverage may properly limit its own UM/UIM coverage to the use of any antique/classic car covered under the specialty policy.
An adjunctive antique/classic-car policy, which excludes UM/UIM benefits with respect to situations involving a regular-use vehicle but works in tandem with a standard regular-use-vehicle policy that provides UM/UIM coverage, satisfies both the language of CRS § 10-4-609 and the public policy goals underpinning the statute. Because that’s precisely the type of specialty antique/classic-car policy at issue here, the Court concluded that the regular-use-vehicle exclusion in the UM/UIM provision is valid and enforceable under Colorado law.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.
An adjunctive antique/classic-car policy, which excludes UM/UIM benefits with respect to situations involving a regular-use vehicle but works in tandem with a standard regular-use-vehicle policy that provides UM/UIM coverage, satisfies both the language of CRS § 10-4-609 and the public policy goals underpinning the statute. Because that’s precisely the type of specialty antique/classic-car policy at issue here, the Court concluded that the regular-use-vehicle exclusion in the UM/UIM provision is valid and enforceable under Colorado law.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.