Lopez Ex Rel. Estate of Lopez v. Foundation Reserve Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Class 2 insured’s coverage was limited to coverage purchased on vehicle in which he was riding
• holding that uninsured motorist coverage covered “named insured” and passenger in covered automobile, but stating that “uninsured motorist coverage of passengers who are not named insureds applies only to passengers injured while occupying an insured vehicle”
• rejecting insurer’s contention of unambiguity because the policy did not consider multiple premiums
• refusing to allow recovery by a Class II injured passenger from a policy covering the Class I insured driver’s second vehicle, which had not been involved in the accident at issue
• finding ambiguity because policy failed to address effect of payment of multiple premiums
• “[U]ninsured motorist coverage protects against bodily injury and does not relate to coverage of a particular vehicle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).