What is the name of your state? Arizona
Single car rollover accident in Oklahoma.
Car owned by Arizona resident.
Father-in-law of vehicle owner was driving, also an Arizona resident.
Mother of vehicle owner was a passenger.
Two minor grandchildren of driver were passengers, Missouri residents, the kids are not the children of the vehicle owner.
Vehicle owner carries $100K single limit liability/UM/UIM under an Arizona policy.
Vehicle driver carries $100K/300K liability/UM/UIM under an Arizona policy.
Mother of children carries $100K single limit liability/UM/UIM, $5K medical coverage and has two vehicles insured under the single Missouri policy.
Police blamed accident on excessive speed for conditions, ice on road, loss of control.
Mother's insurance company agreed to pay the medical coverage policy limit and UIM policy limit for the children.
Driver's policy and vehicle owner's policy are with the same insurance company. They agreed to split the $400K total available liability limits 1/2 to the mother and 1/2 to the children with the full agreement of all involved but when the checks came they showed as having paid the mother-in-law $150K under the $100/$300 policy and $50K under the $100K single limit policy and each child was paid $75K under the $100/$300K policy and $25K/ea under the $100K policy.
This settlement was accepted by the mother-in-law and the checks cashed. The mother of the children has not cashed her checks and has not signed off on the settlement.
The insurance company has refused to pay the UIM coverage for the same policies as they say in a letter from their attorney that the policy language doesn't allow for payment under the UIM coverage if any amount was paid under the liability coverage of the same policy. I see that language but it goes on, undisclosed in the letter from the attorney, to say that the exclusion does not apply if the vehicle owner or operator was not covered under the liability portion of the policy. I believe this is the case and the insurance company should pay.
Questions:
Is the insurance company justified in not paying under the UIM portion of the policies (there has been no question but that the damages exceed the liability coverage)?
Can the mother of the children collect the full policy limits ($100K per person) on the $100/300K liability policy that she was offered $75K per child for even though that would result in the insurance company paying more than the $300K per accident limits? In other words, did the insurance company screw up in paying the mother-in-law more than the policy limits in an attempt to try to avoid paying under the UIM coverage?
BTW, everyone likes everyone else in the family and nobody wants a piece of the driver's hide personally and nobody has any ethical or moral issues with taking all the money they are legally entitled to get from the insurance company even if that means the insurance company pays out more than the policy limits.
Single car rollover accident in Oklahoma.
Car owned by Arizona resident.
Father-in-law of vehicle owner was driving, also an Arizona resident.
Mother of vehicle owner was a passenger.
Two minor grandchildren of driver were passengers, Missouri residents, the kids are not the children of the vehicle owner.
Vehicle owner carries $100K single limit liability/UM/UIM under an Arizona policy.
Vehicle driver carries $100K/300K liability/UM/UIM under an Arizona policy.
Mother of children carries $100K single limit liability/UM/UIM, $5K medical coverage and has two vehicles insured under the single Missouri policy.
Police blamed accident on excessive speed for conditions, ice on road, loss of control.
Mother's insurance company agreed to pay the medical coverage policy limit and UIM policy limit for the children.
Driver's policy and vehicle owner's policy are with the same insurance company. They agreed to split the $400K total available liability limits 1/2 to the mother and 1/2 to the children with the full agreement of all involved but when the checks came they showed as having paid the mother-in-law $150K under the $100/$300 policy and $50K under the $100K single limit policy and each child was paid $75K under the $100/$300K policy and $25K/ea under the $100K policy.
This settlement was accepted by the mother-in-law and the checks cashed. The mother of the children has not cashed her checks and has not signed off on the settlement.
The insurance company has refused to pay the UIM coverage for the same policies as they say in a letter from their attorney that the policy language doesn't allow for payment under the UIM coverage if any amount was paid under the liability coverage of the same policy. I see that language but it goes on, undisclosed in the letter from the attorney, to say that the exclusion does not apply if the vehicle owner or operator was not covered under the liability portion of the policy. I believe this is the case and the insurance company should pay.
Questions:
Is the insurance company justified in not paying under the UIM portion of the policies (there has been no question but that the damages exceed the liability coverage)?
Can the mother of the children collect the full policy limits ($100K per person) on the $100/300K liability policy that she was offered $75K per child for even though that would result in the insurance company paying more than the $300K per accident limits? In other words, did the insurance company screw up in paying the mother-in-law more than the policy limits in an attempt to try to avoid paying under the UIM coverage?
BTW, everyone likes everyone else in the family and nobody wants a piece of the driver's hide personally and nobody has any ethical or moral issues with taking all the money they are legally entitled to get from the insurance company even if that means the insurance company pays out more than the policy limits.
