Mercury Ins. v. Pearson
David Douglas Pearson was struck by an uninsured motorist while crossing an intersection on foot. Pearson was listed as an additional driver under an automobile insurance policy issued by the Mercury Insurance Company (Mercury) to Pearsons fiance as the named insured. Asserting that the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy did not cover Pearson for injuries suffered in a pedestrian accident, Mercury denied coverage for Pearson. Mercury sued Pearson for declaratory relief and Pearson cross-claimed against Mercury and the insurance agents who procured the policy. Following Mercurys demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court granted judgment in favor of Mercury.
On appeal, Pearson contends that (1) Mercurys insurance policy is ambiguous and created a reasonable expectation of coverage on his part, and (2) he should be permitted to amend his cross-complaint to allege causes of action against Mercury for vicarious liability and reformation of the policy. Finding no merit in these contentions, Court affirm.
Comments on Mercury Ins. v. Pearson