Garage Auto Policy Not Required to Include Underinsured Motorist Coverage
华盛顿最高法院裁定，州法律不要求车库综合责任保单必须包含未投保驾驶人保险，因为该保单主要保障车库运营责任，而非车主自有车辆。
Hodge v. Raab, 85 P.3d 959 (Washington Supreme Court--April 29, 2004) Although Butzberger estate was able to pursue UIM claims in case described above, same Washington Supreme Court found that UIM coverage was not available under a garageowner's policy issued by Mutual of Enumclaw to Larry Raab's Auburn Valley Chevron. garageowner's policy is an insurance product designed to provide liability coverage for gas stations and auto repair shops that regularly are working with vehicles that they do not own, occasionally driving vehicles short distances to test repairs or look for mechanical problems. Raab policy stated that Mutual would pay for damages garage incurred due to bodily injury resulting form garage However, policy excluded coverage for [a]ny auto used in connection with garage operations but not customer An endorsement to policy provided liability coverage for injury arising out of use of customer vehicles in connection with garage business but specifically excluded claims made by employees. But policy did not include uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. See 88 P.3d at 960. Sure enough, an incident took place at garage that challenged gaps in garageowner policy. Mark Hodge, a mechanic at Haas Chevron, was working on customer Thomas Pullman's truck when the customer engaged ignition of truck, causing vehicle to lurch forward and pin Hodge against wall of garage. Pullman had no auto insurance. Hodge, therefore, sought coverage under garage policy, only to find that it provided no UM coverage. Hodge then argued that state law required Mutual to offer or provide UM coverage in a garage policy, just as an insurer must offer or include UM coverage for personal auto policies. See 88 P.3d at 960. trial court rejected Hodge's argument, as did Court of Appeals. state Supreme Court, framed issue as whether a general liability garage policy that provides coverage for customers' vehicles is required by [state statute] RCW 48.22.030(2) to include uninsured motorist protection. See 88 P.3d at 961. Court found no such requirement in statute. The statute does not mandate coverage in connection with every type of liability policy that will cover damages caused by vehicles. See 88 P.3d at 961. policy at issue in this case provides general liability protection for garage operations, which is limited to property damage and nonexcluded bodily injury claims involving nonowned policy in question is a general liability garage policy which provided coverage for garage operations. policy was not issued to cover vehicles owned by insured, but it does provide coverage for customers' When Mutual issued policy to Raab it purported to cover accidents caused by customers' vehicles in limited circumstances but specifically excluded claims made by employees. …