GEICO investigated Shaw's claim and declined to provide UIM benefits on the ground that she was not an insured under the policy.

Shaw sued. Shaw pointed out that California law included the “named insured” as the “insured” but that the GEICO policy defined “insured” by referring to “the individual named in the declarations.” This deviation from the statutory language, Shaw contended, created an ambiguity that broadened the scope of the policy's coverage to include her.

For its part, GEICO argued that the policy's language was unambiguous, tracked the statute, and, therefore, did not cover Shaw's claim. In its view, the only reasonable interpretation was that “the individual named in the declarations” referred to Vafaei, the named insured.

GEICO moved for summary judgment.

The GEICO Policy

The GEICO policy listed Vafaei as the “Named Insured” and Shaw as an “Additional Driver.”

With respect to UIM benefits, it stated:

LOSSES WE PAY

Under this coverage, we will pay damages for bodily injury to an insured, caused by accident which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, underinsured motor vehicle, or a hit-and-run motor vehicle arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of that motor vehicle.

The amount of the insured's recovery for these damages will be determined by agreement between the insured or his representative and us. The dispute will be arbitrated if an agreement cannot be reached.

For UIM coverage, the policy defined “insured” as:

(a) the individual named in the declarations and his or her spouse;

(b) relatives of (a) above if residents of his household . . . .

The District Court's Decision

The court, applying California law, granted the motion.

In its decision, the court first noted that the GEICO policy tracked the Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.2 except that in place of the statutory term “named insured” the policy used “the individual named in the declarations.” The court added that Section 11580.2(b) defined “named insured” as “only the individual or organization named in the declarations of the policy of motor vehicle bodily liability insurance,” and it found that GEICO essentially substituted the definition of “named insured” into the policy in place of “named insured.” It then ruled that the policy's language tracked Section 11580.2.

Because the statutory language of Section 11580.2(b) would have excluded Shaw from coverage, the court concluded that the GEICO policy did not cover Shaw's claim.

The case is Shaw v. GEICO General Ins. Co., No. CV 18-7601 DSF (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Jessica Shaw, an individual, Plaintiff: Charles Anthony Mayr, Steven M Schuetze, Shernoff Bidart Echeverria LLP, Claremont, CA; Sarah Lea Christian, Gilbert and Stern LLP, Los Angeles, CA. For Geico General Insurance Company, Defendant: John T Brooks, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA; Suzanne Badawi, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA.