car accident lawyer blog

October 8, 2016

Gillespie v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. – Underinsured Motorist Coverage

Underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is essential for anyone who drives a car or owns a vehicle. It is the means by which people injured in a car accident by a driver with minimal bodily injury liability coverage can seek more adequate compensation. More than 1 in 4 drivers in Florida don’t have any insurance at all, and a far higher number have insurance with minimum policy limits.

In the case of Gillespie v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., plaintiff was the policyholder of a UIM policy that, when triggered, would cover not just her but her teenage daughter, who had just earned her temporary driver’s license. But the question before the North Dakota Supreme Court was whether those benefits were indeed triggered.

UIM policies only kick in when:

You are an insured under the policy;
Liability of the other party is established;
The policy limits of the other policy are exhausted;
Those policy limits are inadequate to compensate for crash-related damages.

August 10, 2016

Gearhart v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. – Car Accident With Underinsured Motorist

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

Auto insurance companies that provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to more than one vehicle in a family don’t want those limits stacked so that it might have to pay three times the limit. Similarly, separate policies that cover the same individuals may have anti-stacking provisions in their plans.

This is totally legal and will be enforced by the courts – so long as the language contained therein is clear and unambiguous. However, if there is any ambiguity in these anti-stacking provisions, the courts will generally decline to apply them. This is important because it can mean doubling or sometimes even tripling the amount to which you are entitled.

Let’s look at one example of this, recently weighed by the Idaho Supreme Court. In Gearhart v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., which involved two separate underinsured motorist policies that covered the same young man. The policies written by the same insurance company, but they were separate, one belonging to his mother and another to his father. The couple had previously divorced. Continue reading

May 15, 2016

Trotter v. Harleysville Ins. – “Per Vehicle” and “Per Accident” Insurance Claims

By Ansara Law Personal Injury Attorneys

All auto insurance policies carry limits, which are supposed to be clearly-defined and indicate how much is available per-person and how much is available per car accident.

These limits are important not just for that policy, but also for other secondary policies that may be applicable. Some insurance – like uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage – will only kick in once the limits of the primary policy have been exhausted.

In the recent case of Trotter v. Harleysville Ins. Co., the question before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit was whether the trial court correctly decided that the $500,000 limit on an auto insurance policy was per accident, and not per-person. It was a difference that could have meant hundreds of thousands of more dollars for plaintiffs. However, the appeals court ultimately decided the trial court was right, denying plaintiffs additional coverage. Continue reading