legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Kasiraman v. Assurance Co. of America

Kasiraman v. Assurance Co. of America
03:02:2007

Kasiraman v


Kasiraman v. Assurance Co. of America


Filed 1/22/07  Kasiraman v. Assurance Co. of America CA6


 


 


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT







LAKSHMI PRABHA KASIRAMAN, et al.,


Plaintiffs and Appellants,


v.


ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,


Defendant and Respondent.



      H029877


     (Santa Clara County


      Super. Ct. No. 1-04-CV027292)



I.  INTRODUCTION


            Appellants Lakshmi Prabha Kasiraman and Govindarajan Karuppaian (collectively, plaintiffs) brought a declaratory relief action against respondent Assurance Company of America (Assurance) seeking to establish the insurance policy limits applicable to their personal injury claims.  To resolve the matter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  Assurance argued that the applicable policy limits were $1 million, while plaintiffs argued that the applicable policy limits were $2 million.  The trial court granted Assurance's summary judgment motion and denied plaintiffs' motion, ruling as a matter of law that the applicable policy limits were $1 million under the hired and non-owned automobile liability coverage included in the Assurance commercial general liability policy.


            On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred because the Assurance policy provisions pertaining to the policy limits for hired and non-owned automobile liability coverage are ambiguous and must be construed against Assurance to provide $2 million in coverage for plaintiffs' claims.  For reasons that we will explain, we disagree and therefore we will affirm the judgment.


II.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


            A.  The Underlying Personal Injury Action


            On November 24, 2002, plaintiff Lakshmi Prabha Kasiraman was struck in the crosswalk by an automobile driven by Khanna Kilaita and suffered serious injuries, including brain damage.  In 2003, Kasiraman and her husband, plaintiff Govindarajan Karuppaian, filed a personal injury action against Khanna Kilaita, Anthony Kilaita, and Alpha Factors dba Century 21 Alpha Real Estate (Alpha Factors).  The complaint alleged that at the time of the accident defendant Khanna Kilaita was acting in the scope of her employment as a real estate salesperson for Alpha Factors.


            In the lawsuit, Kasiraman claimed over $4 million in medical expenses and wage loss as a result of the accident, while Karuppaian sought compensation for loss of consortium.  The parties participated in mediation in 2004.  During the course of the mediation, a dispute arose as to the amount of insurance coverage applicable to plaintiffs' claims under the commercial general liability policy issued by Assurance to defendant Alpha Factors.  Assurance contended that there was only $1 million in applicable coverage, while plaintiffs argued that policy limits of $2 million applied to their claims.  However, the parties agreed that â€





Description Appellants ( plaintiffs) brought a declaratory relief action against respondent Assurance Company of America (Assurance) seeking to establish the insurance policy limits applicable to their personal injury claims. To resolve the matter, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Assurance argued that the applicable policy limits were $1 million, while plaintiffs argued that the applicable policy limits were $2 million. The trial court granted Assurance's summary judgment motion and denied plaintiffs' motion, ruling as a matter of law that the applicable policy limits were $1 million under the hired and non-owned automobile liability coverage included in the Assurance commercial general liability policy.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred because the Assurance policy provisions pertaining to the policy limits for hired and non owned automobile liability coverage are ambiguous and must be construed against Assurance to provide $2 million in coverage for plaintiffs' claims. For reasons that court explain, court disagree and therefore court affirm the judgment.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale