As we observed last year in reporting on a then-recent decision of the Court of Appeals,1 “When the Court of Appeals speaks on insurance law issues, it is noteworthy (at least in this space).” How much more so is this statement true when the state’s highest Court speaks on the subject of uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance twice within a span of three weeks, as it did last month. The recent decisions by the Court of Appeals on issues pertaining to the practicalities and logistics of insurance law, discussed below, are interesting, important, and instructive to practitioners and litigants alike.
The first decision, on the issue of the “trigger” of SUM (Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists) coverage, rendered by the Court of Appeals, on June 4, 2009, involved two separate cases with remarkably similar facts. In Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Nunez,2 the insurer issued an automobile insurance policy to Mr. Nunez with liability and SUM coverage of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident. Nunez, his wife, and their two infant children were injured when they were struck by a vehicle insured by Progressive, which also carried $25,000/$50,000 liability coverage limits. Progressive tendered its full policy limit of $50,000 to all four injured claimants, paying $15,000 each to three of them, and $5,000 to the fourth family member. The four claimants then sought SUM benefits from Clarendon, contending that coverage was triggered because none of them received the $25,000 per person limit at least theoretically available to them.
