 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlisle v. Farmers Insurance Exchange3/20/1997
he statute. See Barnett v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co, 843 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1993) (against public policy to offset Social Security disability payments received by UM/UIM insured but not liability recovery from tortfeasor); Newton v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 197 Colo. 462, 594 P.2d 1042 (1979) (against public policy to offset PIP benefits received by UM/UIM insured).
III.
Carlisle also argues that allowing Farmers to offset her combined recovery from both tortfeasors violates Colorado's pro rata liability law, ยง 13-21-111.6, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A). Specifically, she argues that allowing aggregation may impermissibly limit UM/UIM damages for other persons when their liability damages are reduced by the pro rata liability law, and therefore that aggregation should not be permitted in any case. We disagree, and hold that nothing in the pro rata liability law would impermissibly limit an insured's recovery of UM/UIM coverage.
IV.
Finally, Carlisle contends that the second driver's liability insurance is "separate and distinct" for purposes of determining the extent that she was underinsured. We disagree.
Insurers are precluded from offsetting from UM/UIM coverage amounts received by an insured from "separate and distinct" types of insurance coverages or agreements, such as Social Security disability insurance benefits, release-trust agreements, or personal injury protection benefits. See Barnett v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Kral v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co., 784 P.2d 759 (Colo. 1989); Newton v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 197 Colo. 462, 594 P.2d 1042 (1979).
Insurers are allowed, however, to offset from UM/UIM coverage amounts received by an insured from a tortfeasor's liability carrier or from other UM/UIM policies. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Walther, 902 P.2d 930, 935 (Colo. App. 1995). Thus, while in this case there has been recovery from two separate liability insurance policies, they are not "separate and distinct" types of insurance.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE CRISWELL and JUDGE MARQUEZ concur.
|