Upheld Grange policy exclusion which plainly excluded coverage for a non-family occupant insured for UIM coverage under another policy. Appellant was severely injured in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in one of the vehicles. She filed a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage against Grange Property & Casualty, the UIM insurer of the vehicle in which she was a passenger. Grange moved for summary judgment because appellant had her own UIM coverage through GEICO at the time of the collision. Grange asserted that because of this appellant did not qualify as an“insured” under its policy, which plainly excluded coverage for a non-family occupant insured for UIM coverage under another policy. Appellant conceded that she had UIM coverage through GEICO, which would pay regardless of what Grange did, but she sought to recover UIM benefits under both policies, claiming that otherwise she would not be fully compensated for her injuries. The circuit court granted Grange’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellant’s action. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that appellant did not qualify as an insured and that public policy considerations did not mandate a different outcome. The Court concluded that the Grange exclusion was enforceable because UIM coverage is fundamentally different than other motorist insurance coverage mandated under the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. It is reasonable to limit optional coverage such as UIM coverage where the injured party is not the policyholder and has other primary coverage for her claims, and the provision is an unequivocally conspicuous, plain, and clear manifestation of the company’s intent to exclude coverage.

Tort Decision for Month:

Peterson v. Grange Property & Casualty
2017-CA-000870 10/26/2018 
Discretionary Review Denied. Final 3/15/2019.

Here are individual summaries prepared by the AOC organized by legal topics this months PUBLISHED decisions only.

For a list of all archived monthly summaries, please click here for those at the AOC web site and click here for those posted here on this blog.

Please note some of these published decisions may have pending motions for discretionary review so you are cautioned to confirm finality of disposition by going to the AOC’s web site.