The Law Office of Shawn E. McDermott LLC recently won a Colorado appellate case on behalf of its clients relating to uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) automobile insurance benefits. In this case, our clients, the Meza family members, had pursued a wrongful death claim under six different underinsured motorist policies issued to various family members of the Meza family. The claims were based on the tragic death of the family matriarch, Lucia Meza, who died in an automobile accident in 2000.
This insurance coverage denial case was initiated in 2002 by State Farm Insurance against the Mezas and three other insurance companies including Farmers, American Family and American Standard. Each of these carriers had denied the UIM claims of the Meza family members for a variety of reasons. The claims against State Farm and Farmers were resolved a few years ago. The final piece of the puzzle against American Family and American Standard was placed by the Colorado Court of Appeals with its decision on July 3, 2008 which affirmed the decision of the trial court from two years earlier. These two companies had improperly and in violation of public policy defined the term “relative” in its insurance policies in such a way to violate Colorado law. After six years of litigation, the Court of Appeals finally agreed with the legal arguments put forth by the Mezas and our office.
As the case was not published pursuant to Rule 35(f) of the Colorado appellate rules, it is reproduced below for interested readers: (more…)
During Colorado’s most recent legislative session, a new law was added to the books which will effectively increase a Colorado insured’s limits under their Uninsured or Underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist coverage. Visit our uninsured / underinsured motorist page to refresh yourself on the nature of UM/UIM coverage.
Prior to this legislative change, the coverage available to an injured party in Colorado under their UM/UIM coverage was reduced by the amount of money paid to him or her by the responsible party’s Bodily Injury insurance carrier. As an example, if your policy provides for the minimum limits of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident underinsured motorist coverage, but you have received the limits of the responsible driver’s insurance policy which were also $25,000/$50,000, then no claim existed under your UM/UIM feature of your own insurance policy. However, starting in 2008, the UM/UIM carrier is no longer entitled to offset amounts of money the injured insured received under another policy. In the scenario above, the total available under all insurance policies effectively increases to $50,000/$100,000, if your injuries and losses justify the recovery of course. This new law only applies to policies issued or renewed after the January 1, 2008 effective date.
We have always counseled our clients that UM/UIM coverage is perhaps the most important type of coverage to be purchased on your automobile policy. While Bodily Injury (BI) protection is required by law, an insured in Colorado may reject UM/UIM coverage in writing. In our opinion, this would be a mistake. UM/UIM coverage is typically the least expensive type of coverage you can obtain on your policy and effectively insures every other driver out on the road who either does not have insurance or does not have enough insurance. We recommend that you purchase BI and UM coverage limits of at least $100,000/$300,000, even more if you are able to do so.
In September 2006 the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision which finally settles the issue of the stacking of underinsured motorists coverage (UIM) in the State of Colorado. If your policy contains UM/UIM (or “U”) coverage which provides both uninsured and underinsured motorists protection, which it should (check your auto policy “declarations page”), this new case clarifies when such coverage can be stacked or added to additional UIM coverage found in other applicable policies. This office has always argued and in fact been involved in other appellate decisions addressing the ability of an injured person to stack together the limits under separate UIM policies. The new case of In Re: State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.Co. v. Progressive Mutual Ins.Co finally resolves this issue in favor of stacking coverage. (more…)