UIM Statute Limited Coverage to Same as UM Coverage
THE STATUTE CONTROLS
Majdoleen A. Khattab, Administratrix of the Estate of Affan Mohamad
Khattab, ("Appellant" or "the Estate"), appealed the district court's
order granting summary judgment for Berkley Regional Insurance Company
and Integon General Insurance (collectively, "the insurers"), and
entering an order of declaratory judgment in favor of the insurers.
In Majdoleen A. Khattab, Administrator, Estate of Affan Mohamad Khattab
v. Berkley Regional Insurance Company; Integon General Insurance
Corporation, No. 22-1462, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
(October 19, 2023) the Fourth Circuit interpreted the clear language of
the statute and UM/UIM coverages.
ISSUES
At issue is an insurance policy issued by Berkley Regional Insurance
Company. The policy has a general liability limit of $1,000,000 and an
uninsured motorist coverage limit of $70,000. This case solely turns on
the legal question of what the relevant coverage limit under the
insurance policy is for an accident caused by a motorist whose insurance
coverage is less than the amount of claimed damages and less than the
amount of the general liability limit, but greater than the amount of
the uninsured motorist coverage limit.
Virginia mandates that an insurance policy's uninsured motorist coverage
limits must match the policy's liability limits unless any one named
insured rejects the additional uninsured motorist coverage by notifying
the insurer as provided in the statute. There is no dispute that Berkley
complied with the notice requirement for "uninsured/underinsured
coverage limits" pursuant to the statute. There was no dispute that the
insured properly limited the uninsured coverage to $70,000.
With respect to underinsured coverage the statute provides that the
policy shall also provide underinsured motorist insurance coverage with
limits that shall be equal to the uninsured motorist insurance coverage
limits and shall obligate the insurer to make payment for bodily injury
or property damage caused by the operation or use of an underinsured
motor vehicle to the extent the vehicle is underinsured.
Appellant argues, the underinsured coverage limit remained at
$1,000,000, equal to the policy's general liability limit. However,
Appellant did not pay for a UIM coverage of $1 million.
Appellant overlooks that the statutory default sets underinsured
motorist coverage equal to uninsured motorist coverage, not the policy's
general liability limit.
