 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Derosier v. Pawtucket Mutual Insurance Co.1/31/2003
d 983, 985 (Me. 1998) (reaching same result where couple injured in car accident sought UIM coverage under same policy). Similarly, in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 644 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), two injured brothers sought UIM coverage under a $100,000 per accident single-limit policy. The tortfeasor had split-limit liability coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. Construing a statute similar to § 941(f), the court held that the tortfeasor was not underinsured because the per accident limit of the tortfeasor's policy was not less than the single limit stated in the policy insuring the brothers. Id. at 887.
. Our case, however, presents a single injured insured claiming UIM coverage. Hence, comparing per accident liability limits would not be consistent with either § 941(f) or the insured's policy. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the plain language of the statute and the unambiguous terms of the insurance policy, plaintiff suggests that UIM coverage should be available whenever an insured's damages exceed the amount actually available to the insured under the tortfeasor's policy, and that, in no event should an insured receive less that what he would have received had the tortfeasor been uninsured rather than underinsured. These arguments are unavailing for the reasons stated in another opinion issued today, Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., Nos. 2000-053 & 2000-410 (Vt. Jan. 31, 2003).
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|