Cann v. King County

Coleman, J. The Washington state underinsured motorist statute mandates underinsured motorist coverage on all motor vehicle liability policies. RCW 48.22.030(2). Betty Lou Cann argues that as a self-insurer, King County has a liability policy and therefore must provide underinsured motorist coverage for its passengers. The Washington State Supreme Court has held that self-insurance is not a liability policy under the UIM statute. See Kyrkos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 121 Wn.2d 669, 674, 852 P.2d 1078 (1993); RCW 48.22.030(1). Consequently, we hold that the County, as a self-insurer, has no liability policy and, thus, no duty to provide UIM coverage. We affirm. Cann was a passenger on a King County bus when it was struck by a hit-and-run driver. King County is self-insured and does not carry UIM coverage. Cann sued King County, arguing that it had a duty to provide her with UIM protection. King County brought a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The sole issue on appeal is whether a self-insured carrier is obligated to provide UIM coverage under *164 Washington’s UIM statute, RCW 48.22.030. Cann argues that because a self-insurer, in effect, has a liability policy, the self-insurer is required to provide UIM coverage. Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed die novo. State v. Bright, 129 Wn.2d 257, 265, 916 P.2d 922 (1996). RCW 48.22.030(2) states that "[n]o new policy or renewal of an existing policy insuring against loss resulting from liability” shall be issued unless UIM coverage is provided. Thus, the question here is whether a self-insured has a liability policy such that it is subject to the statute’s UIM coverage requirement. This question was answered in Kyrkos, where the Supreme Court held that a self-insurance plan was not an insurance or liability policy under the UIM statute. The court reasoned that self-insurance did not involve the type of third party relationship that insurance policies contemplate. Kyrkos, 121 Wn.2d at 674-75; see also Miller v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 80 Wn. App. 55, 58-59, 906 P.2d 372 (1995). Consequently, we hold that self-insurers are not subject to the UIM statute’s requirement that liability policy holders provide UIM coverage because self-insurance is not liability insurance. See RCW 48.22.030(2). Cann argues that we need not follow Kyrkos because two Washington cases conflict with it, holding that self-insurance plans are in fact liability policies. These cases, however, involved disputes between car rental companies and customers. While the rental companies were self-insured, the courts held that the rental agreements were stand-alone policies of motor vehicle insurance because the self-insurers issued a liability policy to the customers, not because the companies were self-insured. Corley v. Hertz Corp., 76 Wn. App. 687, 690, 887 P.2d 401 (1994), review denied, 128 Wn.2d 1007 (1996); Van Vonno v. Hertz Corp., 120 Wn.2d 416, 425, 841 P.2d 1244 (1992) (interpreting similar Oregon UIM statute). These cases are therefore inapplicable. Affirmed. *165 Kennedy, A.C.J., and Webster, J., concur. Review denied at 133 Wn.2d 1007 (1997).