 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dowdy4/22/2005
(2) they were injured "in the same accident" as the victim.
We did not ultimately assess whether the Lawrences had met these requirements because we determined that State Farm had waived both the issue of whether the emotional distress claimed by the parents constituted "bodily injury " and the issue of whether the parents had been "in the same accident" as their child.
The issue of separate policy limits for loss of consortium also arose in Wold v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co. in connection with the question whether liability coverage had been exhausted. Heidi Wold, a passenger in Kirby Smith's car, lost her life in an accident that occurred when Smith swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle in his lane of traffic. The Wold parents wanted to recover underinsured motorist benefits from their insurer, Progressive. Progressive denied such coverage on the basis that the liability coverage under Smith's policy with Allstate had not yet been exhausted because the Wolds' claim for loss of consortium had triggered separate "per person" policy limits under the Allstate policy.
In Wold, we decided that it was unnecessary to resolve definitively whether a loss-of-society claim should trigger separate "per person" coverage because Progressive and Allstate both viewed "a claim for loss of consortium or society - as opposed to a claim for NIED - as a derivative claim that would not trigger a separate 'per person' Allstate policy limit." Because both parties agreed on the proper treatment of the claim it was unnecessary for us to rule on the question of whether separate "per person" policy limits should generally apply to loss of consortium. In a footnote to the opinion, we recognized that the issue may not be amenable to a definitive resolution, since much of the case law cited by the parties in their supplemental briefing seems to suggest that whether a loss-of-society claim should trigger separate "per person" coverage may hinge more on a particular policy's definition of the scope of its bodily injury coverage than on the inherent nature of a cause of action for loss of society.
An added layer of complexity in determining these coverage issues, therefore, is that many variations exist in policy language and scope. As our footnote in Wold suggests, these variations may prevent the court from making a broad or general determination as to whether separate policy limits apply and may require a specialized analysis of the policy language in question.
C. The State Farm Insurance Policy Does Not Commit the Disputed Coverage Issues to Arbitration
By its terms, the State Farm arbitration clause does not include the disputed coverage issues in this case. The policy language commits two questions to arbitration:
1. Is the insured legally entitled to collect damages from the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured motor vehicle; and
2. If so, in what amount?
By focusing on the insured's right "to collect damages from the owner or driver" (emphasis added), the arbitration clause unambiguously excludes questions relating solely to the right to collect from the insurer. Here, the disputed coverage claims involve the Dowdys' right to recover from State Farm, not from the owner or driver of the vehicle. The language of the policy therefore does not submit the disputed coverage issues to arbitration.
The Dowdys assert that their claim should nevertheless be arbitrated because the coverage matters in question are inextricably intertwined with the issues of fault and damages committed to arbitration under the policy. They also argue that if the coverage issues are not arbitrated they wi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|