 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Berkemeir v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest3/20/2003
(For Official Publication)
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest (Hartford) appeals the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Dorothy Berkemeir (the Estate) and the denial of Hartford's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1995, James Alexander inexplicably turned his vehicle into oncoming traffic on Interstate 80 causing a collision with Dorothy Berkemeir's car. Berkemeir was injured, and the medical costs associated with treating her injuries exceeded $38,000. Alexander conceded liability. Subsequently, on October 9, 1996, Berkemeir, without objection from Hartford, her insurer, executed a settlement agreement and release with Alexander and his insurance company for the $50,000 limit of his automobile liability policy. Berkemeir then filed a claim with Hartford demanding additional coverage under her underinsured motorist policy (UIM).
Hartford conceded that Berkemeir's damages exceeded Alexander's liability coverage; however, Hartford disputed the amount Berkemeir was entitled to under her contract. Thus, the parties entered into arbitration to determine the deficiency in coverage that occurred as a result of Alexander's underinsured status. The parties agreed to a hearing date of July 21, 1997. However, because Hartford desired an independent medical examination, the hearing was later rescheduled. Unfortunately, before the arbitration hearing was held, Berkemeir died of causes unrelated to the accident. Following her death, the Estate reduced its demand from $100,000 to $45,580.40, but based on its interpretation of Utah Code Ann. ยง 78-11-12(1) (1996) (the Survival Statute) Hartford denied the Estate's claim and withdrew from the arbitration. The Estate then filed a complaint in the district court claiming breach of contract, preemptively arguing that the Survival Statute was inapplicable. After Hartford filed an answer, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment preceded by a joint factual stipulation and summary of the parties' legal positions, including argument concerning the applicability of the Survival Statute. Following oral argument, the trial court granted the Estate's motion for partial summary judgment concluding that the action arose out of contract and that the Survival Statute was inapplicable. Hartford petitioned for interlocutory review. The Utah Supreme Court granted the request and transferred the matter to this court. We affirm.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Hartford argues that following Berkemeir's death the Estate's claim was limited by the Survival Statute, thus, the trial court erred in granting the Estate partial summary judgment. "Because summary judgment is not granted as a matter of fact, but rather as a matter of law, we review the trial court's legal conclusions for correctness." Pixton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 809 P.2d 746, 748 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). Moreover, "' n matters of pure statutory interpretation, review a trial court's ruling for correctness and give no deference to its legal conclusions.'" Lieber v. ITT Hartford Ins. Ctr., Inc., 2000 UT 90, , 15 P.3d 1030 (quoting Stephens v. Bonneville Travel, Inc., 935 P.2d 518, 519 (Utah 1997)).
ANALYSIS
Hartford asserts that Berkemeir's death from causes unrelated to the underlying accident relieves Hartford from the duty to pay the Estate any additional UIM benefits. Hartford predicates this argument on its reading of Berkemeir's UIM policy language and the effect that the Survival Statute has on Hartford's duty under the policy. Accordingly, to determine if the trial court erred, we must determine both Hartford's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|