 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Co. v. Grimstad-Hardy9/7/1993
conjunction with the coverage page, which plainly sets forth "per person" and "per accident" limits for each vehicle.
Although Grimstad-Hardy assigned error to the trial court's award of $50,000, the net amount of UIM coverage available after receiving a $50,000 payment from USAA, she has not argued on appeal that the setoff was erroneous. Moreover, such a result is consistent with RCW 48.22.030(6) and Doyle v. State Farm Ins. Co., 61 Wash. App. at 642; Furlong v. Farmers Ins. Co., 44 Wash. App. 458, 721 P.2d 1010, review denied, 107 Wash. 2d 1017 (1986).
In sum, RCW 48.22.030(5) does not lend itself to the interpretation argued by Grimstad-Hardy. We find the statute allows insurers to limit stacking of both "per person" and "per accident" liability coverage. In addition, the policy language itself prohibits stacking of coverage. Although the policy is not a model of clarity and could have been more precisely crafted, the apparent ambiguities of isolated clauses are clarified when the provisions are properly read in conjunction with one another. Similarly, the limitation of liability for "per person" and "per accident" coverage is unambiguous when read in conjunction with the coverage page.
We affirm.
Disposition
Holding that the insured could not stack coverage for the three vehicles insured under the underinsured motorist provisions of the policy and that coverage is limited to the "per person" liability limits contained in the policy, the court affirms the judgment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|