He asserted, however, that the damage to his vehicle left him without the use of his Audi for 47 days. State Farm paid a part of the $26.24 daily charge for 41 of those 47 days that Mr. Cheban rented a Ford Fusion; Mr. Cheban paid $254.73 out-of-pocket, and State Farm paid $975.40.

Mr. Cheban sued State Farm, claiming among other things that he was entitled to recover for his loss of use under the terms of the underinsured motorist ("UIM") provisions of his insurance policy.

Mr. Cheban moved for summary judgment, requesting an order stating that his policy covered his loss of use.

The trial court denied his motion and dismissed his claim for loss of use damages.

Mr. Cheban appealed, asserting that his State Farm policy provided coverage for loss of use.

For its part, State Farm asserted that the policy was "clear and unambiguous" in defining property damage as "physical damage to or destruction of" Mr. Cheban's vehicle, and that the "ordinary understanding of physical damage" was damage that was "tangible and capable of being perceived by the senses." State Farm argued that loss of use was "not tangible and not concrete" and could not be "'physical' under any reasonable definition."

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed.

In its decision, the appellate court found that both parties had put forth "reasonable interpretations" of the policy language, "We will pay compensatory damages for property damage an insured is legally entitled to recover."

In the appellate court's view, from the perspective of an average person purchasing insurance, the phrase reasonably could be construed as providing coverage for the amounts he or she would be able to recover directly from the owner or driver of the uninsured vehicle. It added that State Farm's interpretation – that it would compensate the insured only for physical damage to his or her car – also was reasonable.

The appellate court then declared that, because the phrase was "ambiguous," it had to be interpreted in favor of Mr. Cheban "to cover loss of use resulting from property damage caused by an uninsured/underinsured motorist."

Therefore, the appellate court ruled, the trial court erred by denying Mr. Cheban's summary judgment motion.

The case is Cheban v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 77925-7-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Petitioner: Paul Michael Veillon, Galileo Law, PLLC, Seattle, WA; Stephen Michael Hansen, Law Offices of Stephen M Hansen PS, Tacoma, WA; Scott Nealey, San Francisco, CA. For Respondent: Thomas George Crowell, State Farm Claims Litigation Counsel, Seattle, WA.