 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eaquinta v. Allstate Insurance Co.11/15/2005
that the legislature did not intend to require automobile insurance companies to provide UIM coverage to insureds in situations where a third party, not covered by the applicable insurance policy, is injured or killed.
This construction of the UM/UIM statute is in harmony with the vast majority of jurisdictions that have interpreted language similar or identical to the language contained in subsection 9(a). See supra n.5.
Furthermore, although it is unnecessary for us to consider public policy considerations to discern the meaning of the UM/UIM statute, see Carlie v. Morgan, 922 P.2d 1, 4 (Utah 1996), we note that such considerations also weigh heavily in favor of our interpretation of the UM/UIM statute. An interpretation that would allow an insured to recover UIM benefits under her insurance policy for the death of a third party who is not covered under that policy would impose an unfair risk on insurance companies without the attendant consideration in the form of a premium and, possibly, increase the cost of insurance for all consumers. Such an interpretation would mandate an insurance company to provide UIM coverage to a wrongful death beneficiary simply because that beneficiary has an automobile insurance policy and the decedent happens to be a relative for which the beneficiary is legally entitled to maintain a wrongful death action. To judicially extend UIM coverage to include members of the family who are not residing with the insured would, in effect, require automobile insurance companies to insure any lineal descendant from whom an insured may inherit for hazards associated with the operation of vehicles. Livingston v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co,, 927 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). If the legislature had intended such a momentous expansion of UIM coverage, it would have made that intent explicit in the UM/UIM statute. Instead we conclude that the intended purpose of the UM/UIM statute was to require UIM coverage only in instances where a person covered by the relevant insurance policy sustains bodily injury , sickness, disease, or death.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err when it concluded that Glorya Eaquinta was not entitled to UIM benefits under her Allstate insurance policy for the death of her son. The terms of Glorya Eaquinta's policy limit her UIM coverage to situations where the insured sustains bodily injuries. The policy's restrictive language is consistent with the statutory requirements contained in Utah's UM/UIM statute. We therefore affirm.
Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Wilkins, Justice Parrish, and Justice Nehring concur in Justice Durrant's opinion.
Page 1 2 3 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|