 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Home Insurance Co.6/4/1992
f persons to whom this coverage must extend is codified at § 10-4-703(6),C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A), which provides:
Insured means the named insured, relatives of the named insured who reside in the same household as the named insured, or any person using the described motor vehicle with the permission of the named insured. (emphasis supplied)
The provisions of the Act are included as part of every automobile insurance policy and govern in any conflict between a policy and the Act. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Allen, 797 P.2d 46 (Colo. 1990).
Although insurers may exclude risks or limit coverage so long as public policy is not violated, Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 788 P.2d 748 (Colo. 1990), insurance policy provisions which attempt to dilute, restrict, or condition coverages required by the Act are void and invalid. Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo. 1984); Murphy v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 747 P.2d 691 (Colo. App. 1987).
Based on its policy, Home contends that Golden and its employees are excluded from coverage as insureds since they were moving property to and from the vehicle. The provision defining insureds, upon which Home relies, provides that:
Anyone else is an insured while using with your permission a covered auto you own, hire or borrow except. . . anyone other than your employees, a lessee or borrower or any of their employees, while moving property to or from a covered auto. (emphasis supplied)
The trial court held that this exclusion improperly narrows the class of insureds to whom Home is required by the Act to provide coverage. We agree.
It is undisputed that the driver's injuries occurred when cylinders of chlorine were being loaded onto the truck, that Golden employees were loading the cylinders onto the truck, and that they had permission to use the truck during the loading process. Therefore, if the Golden employees were using the truck with permission, they are insureds under the Act to whom Home is obligated to provide coverage.
Here, Home's policy provides loading and unloading coverage, thereby expanding the coverage intended by the word "use". See Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. West American Insurance Co., 35 Colo. App. 380, 540 P.2d 1112 (1975). Because Golden employees were permissive users of the truck, they are entitled to qualify as insureds pursuant to the Act. Therefore, to the extent Home's policy exclusion attempts to limit the compulsory classification of insureds to whom defendant is obligated to provide coverage, it is contrary to the Act and invalid. See Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Hall, 690 P.2d 227 (Colo. 1984); Bukulmez v. Hertz Corp., 710 P.2d 1117 (Colo. App. 1983), aff'd in part sub nom. Blue Cross v. Bukulmez, 736 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1987).
Contrary to Home's contention, the Act does not permit optional exclusions limiting the scope of insureds to whom compulsory coverage must be provided.
The Act does spell out limited permissible exclusions by which an insurer may restrict or condition coverage. See § 10-4-712, C.R.S. (1991 Cum. Supp.) and § 10-4-721, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol 4A). However, statutes which specify certain situations must be construed to exclude from its operation all other situations not specified. See In re Marriage of Van Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. App. 1988). Accordingly, because
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|