Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; June 14, 1999; Washington; State Appellate Court
Marilyn Walker, Betty Pulliam, David Diaz, and Walker’s minor children (referred to as "appellants") were injured in an accident involving an uninsured motorist while in a rental car from National Car Rental Systems (National). The appellants had purchased liability insurance from National and supplemental liability insurance (SLI) from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Philadelphia). They filed a lawsuit against both parties seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage of one million dollars, matching the liability limit of the SLI policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for National, limiting its UIM liability to $50,000 based on its policy, and for Philadelphia, ruling that its SLI policy did not cover the appellants' claims.
Under Washington law, vehicle liability policies must provide UIM coverage unless explicitly rejected in writing. The National policy included a UIM rejection clause, but the appellants did not formally reject the UIM coverage. Washington’s financial responsibility statute mandates a minimum of $50,000 in liability coverage for accidents involving multiple injuries, which National acknowledged it must provide. The contention arises regarding the SLI policy from Philadelphia, which offers up to $1,000,000 in excess liability coverage. The appellants assert that this policy should qualify National to provide $1,000,000 in UIM coverage, citing RCW 48.22.030(3).
However, the SLI policy is classified as an excess policy, explicitly excluded from the UIM statute, as it only applies in addition to the primary insurance applicable to the vehicle. The policy's title indicates it is an "EXCESS POLICY," and its definitions and exclusions clarify that it does not cover liability related to uninsured or underinsured motorist laws. Furthermore, the rental agreement signed by the appellants confirms their acceptance of all terms and conditions, including those pertaining to the insurance coverage.
SLI coverage is limited to renter liability to third parties and explicitly excludes coverage under uninsured or underinsured motorist laws, as well as first-party benefits or no-fault laws in any state. National's minimum limits liability policy is primary when the renter purchases SLI coverage, making SLI coverage excess whenever it exists. Consequently, the SLI policy from Philadelphia does not provide UIM coverage as stipulated in its terms, and Philadelphia is not obligated to offer UIM coverage since it is an excess policy exempt from such requirements. National is also not required to provide UIM coverage up to Philadelphia's limits due to the nature of the policies involved.
The appellants contend that they were misled by a clerk at National who stated they had "full" coverage, arguing that this should prevent Philadelphia and National from asserting the excess policy exemption. However, equitable estoppel in insurance cases does not allow for extending coverage or modifying restrictions based solely on statements made by an agent. For the appellants to succeed in their estoppel claim, they must demonstrate that they reasonably relied on the clerk's statement and that it contradicted the subsequent denial of full coverage. The court finds that any reliance on the "full" coverage claim was unreasonable, drawing parallels to previous cases where reliance on misleading statements did not alter the clear language of the insurance policy. The ruling is affirmed.
