 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bowan v. General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona8/16/2005
an that the insured cannot, through collection under different policies or endorsements, receive more than the entire amount of the judgment to which he was entitled.
Interpreting this ambiguity in the manner most favorable to the insured requires us to find that Bowan would not receive duplicate payments if she recovered from both the business auto policy and its UIM endorsement. Bowan will not receive more than the full amount of damages she is entitled to under the trial court's judgment under any one policy. Therefore, she did not receive "duplicate payments" under the different policies.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that the CGL insurance policy and the business auto liability policy and its UIM endorsement all provided coverage for the judgment. Point denied.
In its third point on appeal, GSIC argues the trial court erred in finding in its August 2, 2004 judgment, as amended by its September 1, 2004 order, that GSIC is liable under the CGL insurance policy to pay for the prejudgment interest awarded in Bowan's personal injury case.
The CGL policy contains a provision that states:
We will pay, with respect to any claim we investigate or settle, or any "suit" against an insured we defend:
*
Prejudgment interest awarded against the insured on that part of the judgment we pay.
We found above that GSIC is liable under the CGL policy for Bowan's personal injury claims, and that Bowan does not receive "duplicate payments" under the different policies until the complete measure of her damages is paid. Therefore, based on the above provision, we also find that GSIC is required to pay the prejudgment interest on Bowan's judgment. Point denied.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|