{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f182\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f183\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f185\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f187\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f189\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f190\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid682616 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}
{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden \styrsid682616 footnote reference;}{\*\cs16 
\additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid682616 Hyperlink;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \ssemihidden \styrsid682616 footnote text;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \styrsid682616 header;}{\*\cs19 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid682616 page number;}{\*\ts20\tsrowd\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \sbasedon11 \snext20 \styrsid682616 Table Grid;}{\s21\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext21 \ssemihidden \styrsid4460986 endnote text;}{\*\cs22 \additive \super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden \styrsid4460986 endnote reference;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid1476423944\listhybrid
{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li720\jclisttab\tx720\lin720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0
\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440\lin1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1
\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160\lin2160 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext
\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880\lin2880 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713
\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3600\jclisttab\tx3600\lin3600 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}
\fi-180\li4320\jclisttab\tx4320\lin4320 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698703\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5040\jclisttab\tx5040\lin5040 }
{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698713\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5760\jclisttab\tx5760\lin5760 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2
\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid67698715\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li6480\jclisttab\tx6480\lin6480 }{\listname ;}\listid2019699488}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid2019699488
\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid139734\rsid156928\rsid489995\rsid542383\rsid682616\rsid735418\rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid1378253\rsid1598413\rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2368600\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid2910246
\rsid3176464\rsid3364625\rsid3422714\rsid3430841\rsid3552745\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4278174\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4411464\rsid4460986\rsid4720090\rsid4723893\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid4999147
\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5509761\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid5770186\rsid6060947\rsid6160848\rsid6169523\rsid6507484\rsid6514138\rsid6697533\rsid6782860\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7685509\rsid7883355\rsid7958375\rsid8016262
\rsid8083724\rsid8127482\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9003439\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9776131\rsid9855724\rsid10049473\rsid10121298\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid10838629\rsid10884006\rsid11014019
\rsid11029288\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11430874\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12408014\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid13980964\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652
\rsid14249133\rsid14288987\rsid14306158\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15626583\rsid15665174\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16279834\rsid16587780
\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author raikatalau_l}{\operator raikatalau_l}{\creatim\yr2011\mo5\dy17\hr16\min56}
{\revtim\yr2011\mo5\dy17\hr16\min56}{\version2}{\edmins0}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords4311}{\nofchars22159}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws26369}{\vern24689}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 
\widowctrl\enddoc\aenddoc\aftnnar\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow1\dgvshow1
\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct
\asianbrkrule\rsidroot682616\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet1{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid682616 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid682616 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid682616 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid682616 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \psz1\linex0\headery1440\footery576\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid682616\sftnbj\saftnnar {\header \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw30\brsp20 \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\insrsid14306158 Villanueva v. Commercial Sanitation Sys. Inc.}{\insrsid14306158 \tab \tab  Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs19\insrsid14306158  PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\cs19\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid7685509 9}}}{\insrsid14306158  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs19\insrsid14306158  NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\cs19\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14306158 12}}}{\cs19\insrsid14306158 
\par }{\insrsid14306158 
\par }\pard \s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid14306158 
\par }}{\footer \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid14306158 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\pvpara\posx0\posy0\absw9361\nowrap\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24\insrsid14306158 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24\insrsid14306158 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 NANCY A. VILLANUEVA,
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Individually and as Legal Guardian of }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5509761 LEO VILLANUEVA}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 ,
\par an Incompetent Person, and for the use and benefit of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\par Plaintiff-Appellant,
\par 
\par vs.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 COMMERCIAL SANITATION SYSTEMS, INC., DAI-TOKYO
\par FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, EDWARD
\par G. DUENAS, RAYMOND SANTOS, DOES I THROUGH X}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 ,
\par Defendants-Appellees.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA04-005
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0867-01
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 OPINION
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 Filed: April 12, 2005
\par Cite as: 2005 Guam 8
\par 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 27, 2004
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid10884006 {
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee:
\par William R. Mann, Esq.
\par Berman, O}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Connor, Mann & Shklov
\par Suite 503 Bank of Guam Building
\par 111 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant:
\par Thomas L. Roberts, Esq.
\par Dooley, Roberts & Fowler LLP
\par Suite 201 Orlean Pacific Plaza
\par 865 South Marine Drive
\par Tamuning, Guam 96913\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 

\par BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Jr., Associate Justice.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid735418 CARBULLIDO, C.J.:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [1]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy A. Villanueva appeals from the trial court}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s Decision and Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee Dai-Tokyo Fire & Marine Insurance Company.

\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [2]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab 
The sole issue on appeal is whether, under the Dai-Tokyo automobile liability insurance policy, Mrs. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s damages for loss of consortium are subject to the "per person" damages limit of $100,000 or whether it is subject to the "per accident" limit of $300,000. The trial court held that the damages for Mrs. Villanueva}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s loss of consortium are subject to the "per person" limitation clause found in the insurance policy because Mrs. Villanueva}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s damages for loss of consortium are a result of the bodily injury to one person, Mr. Villanueva. We affirm.
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid14306158 I.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [3]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab 
Juan Villanueva was involved in a head-on collision with a truck operated by Commercial Sanitation Systems, Inc. ("Commercial Sanitation"), on March 16, 2001, on the back road to Andersen. As a resu
lt of the collision, Mr. Villanueva suffered massive head injuries. He is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, is unemployable, has substantial brain damage, and requires 24-hour care. He is married to Mrs. Villanueva, and she has become his
 constant caretaker. In the lawsuit that arose from this incident, she asserted a claim for loss of consortium along with the Villanuevas}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  other claims for pain and suffering, lost wages, and compensatory damages. Defendant Dai-Tokyo Fire and Marine Insuran
ce Co., Ltd., ("Dai-Tokyo") insured the defendant, Commercial Sanitation System. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the isolated question on appeal in this case involving the interpretation of policy language as it relates to Mrs. Vil
lanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s claim for loss of consortium. The matter was argued to the trial court on March 26, 2003. On June 25, 2003, the trial court entered a Decision and Order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Dai-Tokyo on this single issue. The parties }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid489995 thereafter settled}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 .}{\cs22\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid7685509 \chftn {\footnote\ftnalt 
\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7685509 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs22\super\insrsid7685509 \chftn }{\insrsid7685509  }{\insrsid7685509\charrsid7682242 
Because the parties settled, no facts were established anywhere in the record.  However, to provide further background, Dai-Tokyo submitted these additional facts in briefing, to which the Villanuevas did not object.  The settlement doe
s not attribute fault to Commercial Sanitation for the collision and the Villanuevas received over $900,000.00 in other compensatory damages.
\par }}}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  The settlement allows the Villanuevas}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 lawyer to pursue the sole issue on appeal.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [4]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The policy language that this court is being asked to interpret is as follows:
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 OUR LIMIT OF LIABILITY is changed to read:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts20\trgaph108\trleft720\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl
\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3420\clshdrawnil \cellx4140\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2110\clshdrawnil \cellx6250\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3218\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid10884006\yts20 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Bodily Injury Liability:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 $100,000.\cell Each Person}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts20\trgaph108\trleft720\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3420\clshdrawnil \cellx4140\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2110\clshdrawnil \cellx6250\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3218\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid10884006\yts20 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 $300,000.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Each Accident}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \trowd \irow1\irowband1
\ts20\trgaph108\trleft720\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3420\clshdrawnil \cellx4140\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2110\clshdrawnil \cellx6250\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3218\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\row }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid10884006\yts20 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Property Damage Liability:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 $100,000.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Each Accident}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \cell }\pard\plain 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 \trowd \irow2\irowband2\lastrow 
\ts20\trgaph108\trleft720\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3420\clshdrawnil \cellx4140\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth2110\clshdrawnil \cellx6250\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl 
\clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3218\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\row }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4723893 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 A. 
Regardless of the number of covered autos, insureds, claims made or vehicles involved in the accident, our limit of liability is as follows:
\par 
\par 1. The most we will pay for all damages resulting from }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 bodily injury}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  to any one person caused by any one accident 
is the limit of }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 Bodily Injury Liability}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  shown in this endorsement for "Each Person."
\par 
\par 2. Subject to the limit for "Each Person" the most we will pay for all damages resulting from }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 bodily injury}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 caused by any one accident is the limit of }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 Bodily Injury Liability}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  shown in this endorsement for "Each Accident."

\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Appellant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s Excerpts of Record ("ER"), p. 23 (Dai-Tokyo Business Auto Policy). 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [5]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The term "bodily injury" is defined in the policy as follows: "}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Bodily Injury}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  means bodily injury, sickness or disease including death resulting from any of these." Appellant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s ER, p. 14 (Dai-Tokyo Business Auto Policy). 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [6]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The Villanuevas argue that $300,000 policy limit for "all damages resulting from bodily injury caused by a
ny one accident" is applicable under the facts of this case.\~ Specifically, the Villanuevas argue that because Mrs. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s injury is a separate injury from Mr. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s bodily injury, the term "all damages resulting from bodily injury" must inclu
de her loss of consortium.\~ In other words, the Villanuevas contend that the term "all damages resulting from bodily injury" comes into play when more than one person suffers injury from one accident.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [7]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab Dai-Tokyo submits that because only Mr. Villanueva
 suffered bodily injury, under the language of the insurance policy, the $100,000 "per person" limitation applies.\~
 Dai-Tokyo argues that the $300,000 "per accident" limitation does not apply in this case, because the only person to suffer bodily injury in the accident is Mr. Villanueva.\~ Mrs. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s loss of consortium is not a separate bodily injury resulting from the accident.\~ Therefore, Dai-Tokyo argues that, although the policy language covers "}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid13980964 all damages}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  resulting from bodily injury" up to the 
amount of $300,000, because the "bodily injury" is suffered only by Mr. Villanueva, the $100,000 "per person" limitation applies.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 II.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid5770186 [8]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to 48 U.S.C. \'a7
 1424-1(a)(2) (West, Westlaw through P.L. 109-2, 2005), and Title 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107(b) and 3108(b) (2004). 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid139734 III.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9003439 [9]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab We review the issue presented in this case }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid139734 de novo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 . }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid139734 
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Guam Hous. & Urban Renewal Auth.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , 2003 Guam 19 && 12-13 ("We review a grant or denial of summ
ary judgment de novo"). The interpretation of an insurance policy is also reviewed }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid139734 de novo. Id. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 at & 13.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9003439 IV.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9003439 [10]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The isolated issue on appeal is whether a claim for loss of consortium is included in the policy}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s "per person" damages limitation of $100,0
00, or whether it is a separate claim from the "per person" damages limit, and therefore separately compensable under the policy}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s "per accident" limit of $300,000. If Mrs. Villanueva=s damages for loss of consortium is a result of bodily injury sustained by one person in one accident, then her loss of consortium claim is bundled with all of Mr. Villanueva}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s claims and together they
 cannot recover more than the $100,000 limit. However, if the loss of consortium claim is not a result of bodily injury sustained by one person in one accident, then it is not limited to the "per person" cap, but rather, the Villanuevas may recover more b
ecause the damages would be subject to a different damages limit, specifically, the "per accident" limit of $300,000.00. 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15665174 [11]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The Villanuevas rely entirely on the case of }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9003439 Abellon v. Hartford Insurance Co}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 ., 212 Cal. Rptr. 852 (Ct. App. Dist. 1985), a Calif
ornia appellate court case with a controversial legacy, which found that a spouse}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s loss of consortium claim is subject to the "per accident" limitation. The court held:
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Loss of consortium is a distinct and individual injury. By merging [the wife}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s] injur
y with that of her husband, her injury, in effect, becomes derivative and noncompensable under the terms of the insurance contract, thus effectively negating public policy. . . [she] has suffered an independent, nonparasitic personal injury as a result of
 an automobile accident negligently caused by [the defendant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s] insured. . . [therefore] she is a second person injured by the accident.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15665174 Id}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 . at 859-60.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 [12]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The court in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid14288987 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  was faced with the following policy language: }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 1.\tab}}\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\jclisttab\tx720\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 The most we will pay for }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid14288987 all damages resulting from bodily injury to any one person caused by any one accident}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  is the [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 each person}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  limit.] }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 2.\tab}}\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\jclisttab\tx720\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Subject to the limit for }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 each person}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  the most we will pay }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid14288987 
for all damages resulting from bodily injury caused by any one accident }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 is the [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 each accident}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  limit.]}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Id}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
. at 853. The Villanuevas argue that this is identical policy language to their policy with Dai-Tokyo. We agree that the policy language is the same. Nonetheless, we must examine the reasons to follow }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 or to depart from it. Thus, the debate here is essentially whether to follow a minority California case interpreting identical language, or whether to follow a majority of courts, including many in California, which, for one reason or another, have refus
ed to follow }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , and for reasons which will be discussed below, have held that a spouse}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s claim for loss of consortium is subject to the "per person" limitat}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 ion.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 [13]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The facts in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 are similar to the case at bar: the wife, Jeanne Abellon, suffered a loss of consortium due to her husband}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s catastrophic injuries. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 The}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464  Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  court states early in its deliberations that it would be }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6507484 unfair not to compensate Jeanne'}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s separate injuries for loss of consortium because her loss of consortium was a distin
ct and individual injury, and that merging her injuries with that of her husband rendered her injury noncompensable, "thus effectively negating public policy}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 ."}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464  Id.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  at 855.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 [14]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab We find that the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s rationale is not entirely accurate. The probl
em is not that Jeanne does not get compensated, it is that the compensation limit is reached before her injury is added to it. Without a compensation limit, Jeanne}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s injuries could be compensated together with her husband}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s pain and suffering. But the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
court interpreted the insurance contract in such a way that Jeanne would be compensated for what it deemed was a separate injury, thereby allowing Jeanne access to higher policy limits.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 [15]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon's}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  holding is that "[the wife] is simply a foreseeable plaintiff to whom [the defendant] owes a separate duty of care." 212 Cal. Rptr. at 855. This holding relies on }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
, 115 Cal. Rptr. 765, 780 (Cal. 1974), where the court held that "[consortium rights] are her rights, not his." Therefore, based on }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Rodriguez}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 court concluded that "[Jeanne] is a second person injured in the accident." }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Id}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 . Because Jeanne}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s injuries were separate, they could be compensated under the "per accident" limit, but only so long as the injuries were
 "bodily injuries." The }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Abellon }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
court stated that whether Jeanne sustained a "bodily injury" is a question of fact, which in turn "involves a medical or psychological problem of proof." }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Id}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 . The court e}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12408014 ventually concluded that Jeanne}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12408014 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 loss of consortium had a physical component, and therefore was "bodily injury" and therefore compensable under the separate "per accident" limit. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4411464 Id}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 . at 855-57.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 [16]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The Villanuevas urge this court to follow the reasoning and the conclusion of }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid1378253 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  and hold that Mrs. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s injuries are separately compensable bodily injuries, and therefore are subject to the "per accident" limit. The Villanuevas argue that the }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid1378253 Abellon }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 case did not turn on the issue of whether loss of consortium does or does not constitute bodily }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5509761 injury, but rather on the court}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12408014 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  construction of specific policy language. On the contrary, the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid1378253 Abellon }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 court simply found that the policy language was ambiguous because loss of consortium was not placed into one damage category or anothe
r. Id. at 858-859. Relying on case law instructing that all ambiguous policy language must be construed against the insurer, }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid1378253 Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Kinyon,}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  173 Cal. Rptr.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par 805 (Ct. App. 1981), the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  court found that loss of consortium was a separa}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 tely compensable bodily injury.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 [17]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab Dozens of cases have distinguished }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Abellon,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 though usually because of different policy language. Some examples of grounds that cases have used to reject }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  include that used in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Lepic v. Iowa Mut. Insurance Co}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 ., 402 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 1987), where the court reasoned that loss of consortium is not bodily injury. Other cases have departed from }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 because the element of damages known as "loss of consortium" or "loss of services" is specifically addressed in the policy, which makes it easier to categorize loss of consortium. See }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Moya,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  837 P.2d 426, 430 (Nev. 1992). Other cases rely on their respective state}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s loss of consortium laws to distinguish }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 Abellon.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  See }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16279834 McGovern v. Williams}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , 
741 S.W.2d 373, 375-76 (Tex. 1987).}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 [18]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab Reviewing these other cases, the result is the same. The }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  case stands out from most other cases with this issue, such as }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 Moya,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  which held that there was one injury, which caused many losses. }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 Moya,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 837 P.2d at 430 ("The Moyas did not suffer bodily injuries in the accident; their claims arose as a result of the injuries Mrs. Moya suffered in the accident . . .") The court in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 
Medley v. Frey}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , 660 N.E.2d 1079, 1081 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) expressed the point this way: "[one spouse]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s claim for loss of services is not an independent }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
bodily injury,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  but rather arises out of the }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 bodily injury}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 sustained by [the other spouse], for which [the insurance provider] has paid the $100,000 per person limit of coverage." In }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 Shepard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
, 545 So. 2d 624, 628 (La. Ct. App. 1989), the court said that since the derivative claim of loss of consortium does not come into existence until someone else is injured, that "loss of consortiu
m claims are included within the definition of bodily injury . . . However, any loss of consortium claim is only derivative, . . . [and] therefore restricted to the monetary limits placed in the policy, to a per person total."}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 [19]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab Legal commentary is in accord. The court in }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid542383 Moore v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 710 S.W.2d 225, 226 (Ky. 1986), relied on W.E. Shipley, Annotation, }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid3552745 Construction and Application of Provision in Liability Policy Limiting the Amount of Insurer Liability to One Person,}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  13 A.L.R.3d 1228, 1234 (1967), where it is stated: 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
Under policies fixing a maximum recovery for "bodily" injury to one person, the limitation [is] applicable to all claims of damage flowing from such bodily injury, and that therefore it is immaterial that some 
part of the damages may be claimed by a person other than the one suffering the bodily injuries. In other words, all damage claims, direct and consequential, resulting from injury to one person,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
 are subject to the limitation.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par The court in}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid14249133  Moore}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 quoted this language and concluded that the limit of liability had already been paid on Mr. Moore}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s claim. 710 S.W.2d at 226. His wife}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s loss of consortium claim exceeded the company}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s limit of liability; thus, she was precluded from recovery under the policy. }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid14249133 Id}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4999147 [20]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The Villanuevas nonetheless urge this Court to adopt the }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid6169523 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 case holding, arguing that though it is criticized and distinguished, it is still good law. While it is true that }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid6169523 Abellon }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
has not been overturned, it is poor precedent. The California Supreme Court has not resolved the conflict among its own judicial divisions, but most California appellate divisions except for the fourth }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid6169523 (Abellon) }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 have rejected the reasoning of Abellon. The case of }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid6169523 United Services Automobile Association v. Warner,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  135 Cal. Rptr. 34 (Ct. App. 1976) is instructive.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4999147 [21]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab In }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid10121298 Warner,}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of California, Second Division, was faced with slightly different policy language in th
at the policy itself included a definition of "per person" and it included "loss of services." }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid10121298 Id. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
at 36. The policy stated, "the limit . . . to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 each person}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  . . . include[es] damages for care and loss of services."}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600  Id}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 . The court in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Warner}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  held that loss 
of consortium claims come out of the "per person" limit rather than the "per occurrence" limit. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Id}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
. at 38. It reasoned that "loss of consortium does not arise out of a bodily injury to the spouse suffering the loss; it arises out of the bodily injury to the spouse who can no longer perform the spousal functions." }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Id.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  In this way, the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Warner}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  case represents the contrary view to }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  
\endash  that loss of consortium properly comes out of the "per person" limit because it is derived from the injury to one person. It is not derived from two separate injuries. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 
Abellon }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 rejected the Warner reasoning on the basis that the policy language in Warner was different -- Warner}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s "per person" limit defined all damages as including loss of services. But taking this logic to its natural conclusion, }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Abellon }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 w}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
ould have Warner mean that if a policy did not define its "per person" limit to include all conceivable derivative claims, then any and all derivative claims are converted into additionally covered parties with access to the l
arger $300,000 limit, rather than the smaller $100,000.00 limit. Under this analysis, if the harm is not defined in the "per person" limit, then any party suffering harm resulting from one person}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s accident can be compensated from the $300,000 limit rather than the $100,000.00 limit. We find this illogical and arbitrary.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 [22]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab This court declines to follow }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 
Abellon's }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 restrictive reading of }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Warner}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
. If "per person" damages are not defined in the policy, this court is not required to find that Mrs. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s loss is a separately covered injury. Mrs. Villanueva was not present at the accident. She was not injured in the accident. She suffers a loss that is derived from her husband}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s covered injuries. We reject }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Abellon's}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 distinction and interpretation of the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Warner }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 case, and are persuaded by later cases applying }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 Warner}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
, which recognize the principle that derivative claims fall within the "per person" rather than "per accident" claim.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 [23]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab Other appellate districts in California have reasoned likewise. The Cour
t of Appeal for the Second District of California, when faced with a choice between }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16587780 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  and }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16587780 Warner}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , said, "[w]e think that Warner not only represents the majority view, but is the better-reasoned case." }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid16587780 Mercury Ins. Co. v. Ayala}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158, 162 (Ct.. App. 2004). See also }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid10838629 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ball,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  179 Cal. Rptr. 644 (Ct. App. 1981) (Second District relying on }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid10838629 Warner}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  to reject wife}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s loss of consortium claim). Though analyzing different policy language, the court of appeal for the Third District of California also rejected }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid10838629 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  in favor of the rule that loss of consortium is part of the insured/injured person}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s per person limit. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid4278174 Hauser v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 ., 252 Cal. Rptr. 569 (Ct. App. 1988).}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 [24]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab We recognize that 
there are a small number of other cases that, for one reason or another, have held that a loss of consortium claim is a separately compensable claim. See Jane M. Draper, Annotation, }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 
Consortium Claim of Spouse, Parent or Child of Accident Victim as Within Extended "Per Accident" Coverage Rather Than "Per Person" Coverage of Automobile Liability Policy, }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
46 A.L.R. 4th 735 (1986). However, these cases are in the minority, and for the policy reasons articulated herein, we decline to follow them. In addition to t
he many features that distinguish Abellon from most other cases, Abellon contains a logical flaw. As pointed out, Jeanne Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s loss of consortium injury was compensable under the "bodily injury" limit, but for the fact that the policy limits were exhausted before she could be compensated. 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 [25]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  also stands for the principle that because loss of consortium is separate but inchoate, a court or jury must look at the fact issues underlying a loss of consortium claim to see if it i
s a "bodily injury." This principle directs litigants and judges to develop evidence on the physical manifestations of a loss of consortium claimant. If bodily injury is established, then loss of consortium can be a separately compensable claim. If, howev
er, bodily injury is not established (only mental or emotional injury), then loss of consortium is not compensable. Thus, the }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  case is harsher than first meets the eye, because under }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , unless there are physical manifestations for loss of conso
rtium, there is no compensable injury. The alternative approach allows recovery for loss of consortium without testing whether or not the injury is "physical." Under the latter approach, recovery is often restricted, but only by policy limits, such as was
 the result in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 Warner.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 [26]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab In this way, }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 Abellon }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
promotes an awkward distinction B it compels courts to distinguish between, for instance, plaintiffs who have physical symptoms of grief from plaintiffs with mere emotional suffering so that the damage can b
e counted as bodily injury. This is unnecessary when the loss of consortium is simply an ele}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10049473 ment of damage from the insured'}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s Abodily injury.@ When a party suffers a bodily injury, which in turn causes damages, including loss of consortium, it is not neces
sary to contrive a test for physical versus non-physical bodily injury, because the analysis does not include the remotely injured person. The only "bodily injury" that matters under the policy is that sustained in the accident, (in this case, Mr. Villanu
eva).
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid8127482 [27]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab In conclusion, this court concurs with the reasoning expressed in the dissent in Abellon:
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
[Defendant] negligently caused one accident. That accident caused only one person, Mr. Abellon, bodily injuries. As a result of the bodily injuries to Mr.
 Abellon, Mrs. Abellon, who was not present at the accident, suffered a loss of consortium. The issue here is not whether Mrs. Abellon has suffered a compensable loss, nor whether she had her own claim against [Defendant], nor whether her loss was foresee
a
ble, nor whether [Defendant] should compensate her. Neither is the issue here whether loss of consortium is the type of loss covered by the policy. It is covered, and Hartford does not claim otherwise. The issue here is rather how much insurance coverage 
[Defendant] bought to cover all the claims of Mr. and Mrs. Abellon.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid11029288 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 , 212 Cal. Rptr. at 860 (Lewis, J., dissenting). 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\pnrdate0\pnrnot1\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9855724 [28]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab 
Similarly, in this tragic accident, one person was injured, Mr. Villanueva. As a result of Mr. Villanueva=s bodily injuries, 
Mrs. Villanueva, who was not present at the accident, suffered a loss of consortium. The issue here is not whether Nancy Villanueva suffered a compensable loss, nor whether loss of consortium is a bodily injury, nor whether Dai-Tokyo should compensate her
,
 nor whether loss of consortium is the type of loss covered by the policy. It is covered, and Dai-Tokyo does not claim otherwise. But unfortunately, the policy language limits the payment of damages resulting from the bodily injury sustained by Mr. Villan
ueva, including all collateral injuries created by his injuries, to the amount of $100,000. In other words, Mrs. Villanueva}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s loss of consortium is covered by the policy, but is not payable under the $300,000 "per accident" provision found in the insurance policy, because such provision is "subject to the limit of }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 Each Person.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 " Appellant}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s ER, p, 23 (Dai-Tokyo Business Auto Policy Endorsement BAP-E9 \'b6
 (A)(2)). Thus, because her damages resulted from bodily injury to one person, Mr. Villanueva, in one accident, the most that Dai-Tokyo must pay for the combined injuries of Mr. and Mrs. Villanueva is $100,000.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9855724 [29]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab 
A catastrophic injury to one person typically affects many people. When an insurance company includes a "per person" limit in its policy language,
 it is reasonable to take this to mean the damages flowing from only the injuries of the person who was injured in the covered accident. It is not reasonable to assume that an insurance company will compensate every collateral injury to every new person, 
so long as there is a physical manifestation that arises from one person}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
s injury, as such an interpretation would mean that anyone in the close circle of people around the injured person would have a chance to assert an independent claim under the policy. 
We find this result unreasonable because it expands the circle of covered people to an almost unidentifiable number of claimants. 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9855724 [30]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab In conclusion, this court holds that there are sound reasons to reject }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9855724 Abellon,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  even though it interprets the same policy language. First, }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid9855724 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
 encourages litigants to make the difficult distinction between injuries with physical manifestations and non-physical manifestations in order to arrive at "bodily injury." Acceptance that 
loss of consortium as simply an element of the "per person" "bodily injury" obviates the need for this contrivance. Second, it is the more logical result. As most cases hold, there is one injury covered by the policy. That injury may cause many kinds of s
u
ffering, but those are all logically compensated under the "per person" limit because the accident of the "person" is insured, not all losses. Finally, the problem is not that loss of consortium is an uncompensated loss; rather, the problem is that the po
licy limit is usually reached before the value of the loss is added to the other inchoate losses. 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid7883355 [31]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab One person suffered inj
ury in an accident that was covered by insurance. This is not an ambiguous or confusing proposition, so there is no reason to resort to rules of construction. The holding in }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid11430874 Abellon}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  is isolated, and it has not been followed since, even among its sister district appellate courts. See }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid11430874 Ayala,}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158; }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid11430874 Hauser}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
, 252 Cal. Rptr. 569. The parties have presented no persuasive reason why this jurisdiction should adopt it. On the contrary, the dissenting justice, interpreting identical policy language in }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid11430874 Abellon,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  has put forth the better logic to depart from the }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid11430874 Abellon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  majority, and we adopt it. 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid7883355 [32]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab We therefore adopt the reasoning laid out in the }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid7883355 Abellon }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 dissent and hold, consistent with other cases that depart from }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid7883355 Abellon,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  that a loss of consortium c
laim is included within the definition of bodily injury, and that the distinction between physical manifestations of psychological injury is irrelevant. Further, we hold that because any such loss of consortium claim is derivative, it is restricted to the
 monetary limit placed in the insurance policy to a per person total. See e.g. }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid3364625 Shepard v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 
. Co., 545 So. 2d 624 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 V.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid682616 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 [33]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 \tab The trial court held that the damages for Mrs. Villanueva}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s loss of consortium are subject to the "per person" limitation clause found in the insurance policy because Mrs. Villanueva}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 '}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 s damages for loss of consortium are a result of the bodily injury to one person, Mr. Villanueva. }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616 
\par 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583 We }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid2368600 AFFIRM.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid682616\charrsid15626583  
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid1972231 
\par }{\insrsid4460986 
\par }}