Estate of Wright v. United Services Automobile Association11/8/2001
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division V
Casebolt and Vogt, JJ., concur
In this action arising from the death of Michelle M. Wright (decedent), defendant, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), appeals the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, decedent's parents and her estate. USAA challenges the trial court's ruling that, because decedent died as a result of a "felonious killing," the statutory cap on recovery of non-economic damages does not apply and USAA is therefore liable for the maximum amount of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under its policy. We affirm.
Decedent was killed in a head-on automobile collision. The driver of the car that struck the car in which decedent was a passenger was uninsured. In this action, plaintiffs asserted a wrongful death claim against the uninsured driver and also claims against USAA based on the UM coverage of the policy that insured decedent. By counterclaim, USAA sought a declaratory judgment that its liability was limited to $250,000, the statutory cap on non-economic damages under § 13-21-203, C.R.S. 2001.
After the trial court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by USAA, plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to § 15-11-803(7), C.R.S. 2001, to determine whether the elements of "felonious killing" of the decedent had been established and whether the statutory cap was therefore inapplicable.
Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, and based on undisputed facts, the court found that the driver's conduct satisfied the elements of manslaughter and thus constituted a felonious killing as defined in § 15-11-803(1)(b), C.R.S. 2001. Ruling that the exception to the statutory cap on non-economic damages under § 13-21-203 therefore applied, the court entered judgment against USAA for the unpaid balance of the $1.1 million policy limit provided for UM coverage.
I.
USAA first contends that the "felonious killing" exception to the statutory cap on recovery of damages for non-economic loss in a wrongful death action does not apply where, as here, the tortfeasor pled guilty to vehicular homicide under § 18-3-106, C.R.S. 2001. We disagree.
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo. In interpreting statutes, we must give full effect to the intent of the General Assembly. To determine that intent, we look first to the words used, which must be read in context and accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. Minch v. Town of Mead, 957 P.2d 1054 (Colo. App. 1998).
Recovery of damages for wrongful death is allowed under § 13-21-202, C.R.S. 2001. With respect to damages for non-economic loss or injury, however, § 13-21-203(1), C.R.S. 2001, provides that the amount of recovery is limited to $250,000 unless the "wrongful act, neglect, or default causing death constitutes a felonious killing, as defined in section 15-11-803(1)(b), C.R.S., and as determined in the manner described in section 15-11-803(7), C.R.S.," in which event there is no limitation.
As noted in its title, § 15-11-803, C.R.S. 2001, the so-called "slayer statute," governs the effect of a homicide on "intestate succession, wills, trusts, joint assets, life insurance and beneficiary designations."
Section 15-11-803(1)(b) provides:
"Felonious killing", except as provided in subsection (7) of this section, is the killing of the decedent by an individual who, as a result thereof, is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or enters a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of murder in the first or second degree or manslaughter, as said crimes are defined in sections 18-3-102 to 18-3-104, C.R.S. (emphasis added)
Subsection 7 of tha
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|