stating that a UIM claimant may either pursue a tort claim to conclusion in district court, and then, if the judgment exceeds the liability limits of the tortfeasor’s policy, pursue UIM benefits; or settle the tort action for “the best settlement,” give notice to the underinsurer, and then maintain a claim for UIM benefits
How later courts described this case
- stating that a UIM claimant may either pursue a tort claim to conclusion in district court, and then, if the judgment exceeds the liability limits of the tortfeasor’s policy, pursue UIM benefits; or settle the tort action for “the best settlement,” give notice to the underinsurer, and then maintain a claim for UIM benefits
- explaining that UIM insurance exists for situations when the limits of the tortfeasor’s liability insurance is inadequate and not for situations when “damages are uncompensated because the insured has chosen to settle with the tortfeasor for less than the liability limits”
- concluding that "[t]he insured has the right to accept what he or she considers the best settlement available and to proceed to arbitrate the underinsurance claim for a determination of whether the damages do indeed exceed the tort-feasor’s liability limits”
- setting out a procedure by which a UIM claimant may settle an action against a tortfeasor, without forfeiting UIM benefits, by giving notice of the settlement to the UIM insurer, which may substitute its check for that of the tortfeasor’s insurer to protect its subrogation claim against the tort-feasor
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Onasch v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.
Co., 224 Mich.App. 494, 569 N.W.2d 648 (1997); Schmidt v. Clothier, 338 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 1983), superseded by statute as stated in Onasch v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 444 N.W.2d 587 (Minn.Ct. App.1989); Augustine v. Simonson, 283 Mont. 259, 940 P.2d 116 (1997); Barrett v. New Jersey Mfrs.
The opinion
AMDAHL, Chief Justice
(concurring and dissenting)
I join in the concurrence and dissent of Mr. Justice Todd.