Fear Not Law Articles: Ittner v. Mercury Ins. Co.

Ittner v. Mercury Ins. Co.

Filed 9/19/06 Ittner v. Mercury Ins. Co. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KATIE and LORIE ITTNER et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

B185111

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC323885)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

The Quisenberry Law Firm, John N. Quisenberry, Heather M. McKeon and Eric L. Brown for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Bradley S. Pauley and Patricia Lofton; Gordon & Rees, Theresa A. Kristovich and David M. Morrow for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________________________

The declarations page of an automobile insurance policy indicated a 30-day maximum benefit for rental car coverage. The insurance policy itself provided that the rental car benefit would be paid from the day the loss was reported through the day the insurance company made a settlement offer. Plaintiff insureds were in an automobile accident and reported the loss to defendant insurer. The insurer made a settlement offer, which terminated the rental car benefits prior to the expiration of 30 days. Plaintiffs were therefore required to pay the remainder of their rental car expenses. Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging breach of contract and fraud. They argued that the declarations page of the policy led them to reasonably expect a full 30 days of rental car coverage and that the provision in the policy terminating benefits upon a settlement offer was ineffective as it was not conspicuous, plain and clear. Alternatively, they argued that the declarations page and the limiting provision in the policy together created an ambiguity, which must be resolved in favor of coverage. The trial court sustained the insurer's demurrer without leave to amend. We conclude that the policy provision regarding the termination of rental car benefits is conspicuous, plain and clear. We also conclude that there is no ambiguity. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Lori and Katie Ittner (mother and daughter) obtained automobile insurance from defendant Mercury Insurance Company (â€

Description	The declarations page of an automobile insurance policy indicated a 30 day maximum benefit for rental car coverage. The insurance policy itself provided that the rental car benefit would be paid from the day the loss was reported through the day the insurance company made a settlement offer. Plaintiff insureds were in an automobile accident and reported the loss to defendant insurer. The insurer made a settlement offer, which terminated the rental car benefits prior to the expiration of 30 days. Plaintiffs were therefore required to pay the remainder of their rental car expenses. Plaintiffs brought suit, alleging breach of contract and fraud. They argued that the declarations page of the policy led them to reasonably expect a full 30 days of rental car coverage and that the provision in the policy terminating benefits upon a settlement offer was ineffective as it was not conspicuous, plain and clear. Alternatively, they argued that the declarations page and the limiting provision in the policy together created an ambiguity, which must be resolved in favor of coverage. The trial court sustained the insurer's demurrer without leave to amend. Court conclude that the policy provision regarding the termination of rental car benefits is conspicuous, plain and clear. Court also conclude that there is no ambiguity. Court therefore affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.