The Colorado law states, in part, that the insured is "legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured [or underinsured] motor vehicles." (Credit: alexandre17/Shutterstock)

When Beverly Hughes was injured in a motor vehicle accident, she filed a claim with her insurer, Essentia Insurance Co., under the UM/UIM benefit provision of her policy, according to the appeals court's May 5 opinion. Essentia insured Hughes' two classic cars, but not the "regular use vehicle" she was driving at the time of the crash.

The Essentia policy specifically prohibited "regular use vehicles" from coverage under the UM/UIM provision and denied the claim. The trial court ruled in favor of Essentia, citing the Court of Appeals' 2000 ruling in Cruz v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, which held that "excluding coverage for regularly used cars that are not listed on the policy and for which premiums are not paid are enforceable in Colorado because they protect the insurer from a situation in which the insured pays only for coverage on one vehicle but regularly drives other vehicles not listed on this policy."

The trial court granted Essentia's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the insurer strictly covered classic cars, which have a lower insurance rate and premium, not regular use vehicles. Essentia's requirement that insureds own a regular use vehicle that is separately insured offered Hughes the accident protection she needed in this circumstance, the trial court said.