Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Mildred Kyle

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080638 P r o g r e s s i v e S p e c i a l t y Insurance Company v. M i l d r e d Kyle Appeal from Limestone C i r c u i t (CV-08-124) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . On O c t o b e r 15, 2006, M i l d r e d K y l e was a p a s s e n g e r i n an automobile daughter driven by h e r husband, and grandson, Jennifer Jerry Kyle. Kyle and Jace The K y l e s ' Kyle, and J a s m i n e B r a s w e l l , a f a m i l y f r i e n d , were a l s o p a s s e n g e r s i n t h e 2080638 Kyle automobile. with the Kyle All varying An a u t o m o b i l e d r i v e n by C a r l Howard c o l l i d e d automobile. the occupants degrees, with o f the Kyle automobile Mildred Kyle s e v e r e l y w i t h a broken c l a v i c l e . t o t a l e d $6,383. Jerry's medical had medical respectively. being were i n j u r e d t o injured Mildred's medical t h e most expenses J e n n i f e r ' s m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s were $ 5 , 6 0 7 . 1 5 . e x p e n s e s were $ 1 , 2 3 7 . 6 0 . expenses totaling Jace $1,155.50 and B r a s w e l l and $1,600.75, J e r r y a l s o l o s t $354.45 i n wages as a r e s u l t o f the a c c i d e n t . Howard was a t f a u l t f o r t h e a c c i d e n t . AIG N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e limits AIG Company ( " A I G " ) ; h i s l i a b i l i t y were $25,000 p e r p e r s o n o f f e r e d the p o l i c y settlement He was i n s u r e d b y limits a n d $50,000 p e r policy occurrence. o f $50,000 p e r o c c u r r e n c e o f the claims o f the f i v e occupants in o f the Kyle automobile. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company ("Progressive") had i s s u e d an a u t o m o b i l e - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t o J e r r y K y l e . policy provided insurance uninsured/underinsured-motorist i n t h e amount o f $50,000 p e r p e r s o n . 2 That (UM/UIM) The policy 2080638 contained the following provisions motorist regarding underinsured- ("UIM") b e n e f i t s : "The damages t h a t an i n s u r e d p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r because o f b o d i l y i n j u r y under [ t h e UM/UIM p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e p o l i c y ] w i l l be reduced by: " 1 . A l l sums p a i d b e c a u s e o f b o d i l y i n j u r y by o r on b e h a l f o f any p e r s o n s o r organizations that may be legally responsible i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , a l l sums p a i d u n d e r P a r t I - L i a b i l i t y To Others, and; "2. Any d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e sums p a i d b y the insurers of the persons or organizations who may be legally r e s p o n s i b l e and the l i m i t s o f l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h o s e bonds a n d p o l i c i e s . " On August Braswell $50,000 claims 22, 2007, notified Progressive per-occurrence of the f i v e enclosed the attorney policy The a t t o r n e y requested from P r o g r e s s i v e coverage f o r the accident. 2007, T i n a Thrasher, the f o r the Kyles offering i n settlement of the Kyle regarding occupant. A I G was limits occupants documentation that f o r the Kyles and B r a s w e l l the of the automobile. injuries and of He each further i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g p o s s i b l e UIM By l e t t e r a Progressive 3 dated S e p t e m b e r 13, claim adjuster, informed 2080638 the a t t o r n e y waiving f o r the Kyles i t s subrogation The K y l e s and B r a s w e l l t h a t P r o g r e s s i v e was rights. a n d B r a s w e l l s e t t l e d w i t h A I G f o r t h e $50,000 per-occurrence policy limits of Howard's policy. The s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s were d i v i d e d b e t w e e n t h e f i v e o c c u p a n t s o f the Kyle Mildred automobile received received minors, follows: $7,500, $10,000, settlements as and Jerry Jennifer Braswell received received received $15,000, $7,500, $10,000. The r e c e i v e d by J a c e a n d B r a s w e l l , b e c a u s e t h e y were court-approved pro tanto settlements. Jace were Jerry, M i l d r e d , a n d J e n n i f e r t h e n made c l a i m s f o r UIM b e n e f i t s u n d e r Jerry's policy. P r o g r e s s i v e a n d M i l d r e d a g r e e d t h a t h e r damages t o $40,000. Although amounted P r o g r e s s i v e n e v e r a g r e e d upon t h e amount o f damages i n c u r r e d by J e r r y a n d J e n n i f e r , P r o g r e s s i v e their claims respectively. f o r UIM benefits Progressive for $1,000 and settled $14,000, refused to s e t t l e Mildred's claim f o r UIM b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e i t c l a i m e d t h a t i t owed h e r $15,000, t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n h e r damages o f $40,000 a n d t h e $25,000 per-person Mildred limit insisted o f Howard's that AIG Progressive 4 insurance owed her policy, $32,500, while the 2080638 d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n h e r damages had o f $40,000 a n d t h e $7,500 she a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e $50,000 s e t t l e m e n t w i t h AIG. To an resolve seeking the dispute, Progressive filed action a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e amount o f UIM b e n e f i t s due M i l d r e d u n d e r J e r r y ' s p o l i c y a n d t h e UM/UIM s t a t u t e , A l a . Code 1975, § 32-7-23. Progressive $32,500 a t i s s u e i n t h e c a s e . paid into court the e n t i r e M i l d r e d answered and f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m , a l l e g i n g b a d f a i t h f a i l u r e t o p a y h e r UIM c l a i m . P r o g r e s s i v e f i l e d a m o t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 21, A l a . R. C i v . P., t o s e v e r t h e b a d - f a i t h c l a i m f r o m i t s declaratory-judgment action; trials the t r i a l court ordered separate pursuant to R u l e 42, A l a . R. C i v . P. Mildred moved f o r a summary declaratory-judgment the j u d g m e n t on a c t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n h e r damages $50,000 p e r - o c c u r r e n c e Progressive's and t h e amount of the l i m i t o f Howard's p o l i c y " a v a i l a b l e " t o h e r a f t e r payment o f t h e c l a i m s o f t h e o t h e r o c c u p a n t s o f t h e Kyle automobile, w h i c h , she c o n t e n d e d , was t h e $7,500 she h a d r e c e i v e d from the s e t t l e m e n t w i t h AIG. Progressive by a r g u i n g t h a t i t s p o l i c y l a n g u a g e p r o v i d e d per-person p o l i c y l i m i t s responded t h a t t h e $25,000 o f Howard's p o l i c y be d e d u c t e d 5 from 2080638 Mildred's damages i n o r d e r to determine i t s UIM liability. P r o g r e s s i v e f u r t h e r argued t h a t M i l d r e d ' s f a i l u r e to inform i t o f t h e t e r m s o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t and how the s e t t l e m e n t proceeds were t o be d i s t r i b u t e d t o e a c h o c c u p a n t o f t h e K y l e automobile v i o l a t e d h e r d u t y t o i n f o r m u n d e r L a m b e r t v. S t a t e Farm M u t u a l Automobile Insurance and, that thus, c l a i m and Co., i t s duty 576 So. to 2d 160, i n v e s t i g a t e the to determine whether to i n s i s t subrogation r i g h t s had 167 on ( A l a . 1991), potential or to waive i t s n e v e r been t r i g g e r e d . A t t h e summary-judgment h e a r i n g , P r o g r e s s i v e and a g r e e d t h a t , a t t h e l e a s t , M i l d r e d was UIM benefits; the trial court d i s b u r s e m e n t o f t h a t $15,000. entered The request, claimed the trial an order pursuant to Rule arguing that made 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. Mildred was effecting t r i a l court further entered P r o g r e s s i v e owed h e r . court Mildred e n t i t l e d t o $15,000 i n judgment i n f a v o r of M i l d r e d f o r the r e m a i n i n g b e n e f i t s she UIM the entitled At summary C i v . P. to $17,500 i n Progressive's judgment Progressive only UIM $15,000 final, appeals, in UIM b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e o f t h e l a n g u a g e i n J e r r y ' s p o l i c y and b e c a u s e Mildred proposed failed to properly n o t i f y settlement and the i t of intended 6 the details distribution of the of the 2080638 s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s as r e q u i r e d , P r o g r e s s i v e c o n t e n d s , under Lambert. We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de n o v o ; we standard as was applied i n the t r i a l summary j u d g m e n t i s t o be material fact exists and a p p l y t h e same court. A motion g r a n t e d when no the moving p a r t y genuine for a issue is entitled j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. "that t h e r e i s no genuine f a c t and t h a t [ i t ] i s e n t i t l e d law." Rule 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; 1036, 1038 burden then to as t o any facie material t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f see Lee v. C i t y ( A l a . 1992). shifts issue to a C i v . P. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a showing o f Gadsden , 592 So. I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , the of nonmovant to r e b u t the 2d "the movant's p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g by 'substantial evidence.'" L e e , 592 So. 2d omitted). evidence is at 1038 (footnote "[S]ubstantial e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 1 9 8 9 ) ; see A l a . Code 1975, § 547 So. 12-21-12(d). 7 2d West v. 870, Founders 871 (Ala. 2080638 We will first consider Progressive's second argument on a p p e a l : t h a t M i l d r e d d i d n o t p r o v e e n t i t l e m e n t t o $32,500 i n UIM b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e she f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n f o r m P r o g r e s s i v e of the details specifically, the five of the settlement with AIG, or, more t h e i n t e n d e d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e $50,000 among injured occupants of the Kyle automobile. P r o g r e s s i v e b a s e s i t s a r g u m e n t on t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t o u t by Supreme C o u r t insured attempts tortfeasor injured i n Lambert c o n c e r n i n g when to a settle UIM a situation a claim against claim is likely to an be i n which made by "(1) The i n s u r e d , or the i n s u r e d ' s counsel, s h o u l d g i v e n o t i c e to the u n d e r i n s u r e d motorist i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r of the c l a i m under the p o l i c y f o r u n d e r i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s as s o o n as i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e i n s u r e d ' s damages may e x c e e d t h e t o r t f e a s o r ' s l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y coverage. "(2) I f t h e t o r t - f e a s o r ' s l i a b i l i t y insurance c a r r i e r and t h e i n s u r e d e n t e r i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t ultimately lead to a proposed compromise or settlement of the insured's claim against the t o r t - f e a s o r , and i f t h e s e t t l e m e n t w o u l d r e l e a s e t h e t o r t - f e a s o r from a l l l i a b i l i t y , then the i n s u r e d , before agreeing to the settlement, should immediately notify the underinsured motorist i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r o f t h e p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t and t h e t e r m s o f any p r o p o s e d r e l e a s e . the time the insured informs motorist insurance carrier of 8 an underinsured insured: "(3) At underinsured our the the the 2080638 t o r t - f e a s o r ' s i n t e n t to s e t t l e , the i n s u r e d s h o u l d a l s o i n f o r m t h e c a r r i e r as t o w h e t h e r t h e i n s u r e d w i l l seek u n d e r i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s i n a d d i t i o n to the b e n e f i t s payable under the settlement p r o p o s a l , so t h a t t h e c a r r i e r can d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t w i l l r e f u s e to consent to the s e t t l e m e n t , w i l l waive i t s right of subrogation against the t o r t - f e a s o r , o r w i l l deny any o b l i g a t i o n t o pay u n d e r i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s . I f the i n s u r e d g i v e s the u n d e r i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r n o t i c e o f t h e c l a i m f o r u n d e r i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s , as may be p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e p o l i c y , t h e carrier s h o u l d immediately begin i n v e s t i g a t i n g the c l a i m , should conclude such investigation within a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , and s h o u l d n o t i f y i t s i n s u r e d o f the a c t i o n i t proposes w i t h r e g a r d to the c l a i m f o r underinsured motorist benefits. "(4) The i n s u r e d s h o u l d n o t s e t t l e w i t h t h e t o r t - f e a s o r w i t h o u t f i r s t a l l o w i n g the u n d e r i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r a reasonable time w i t h i n w h i c h t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e i n s u r e d ' s c l a i m and t o n o t i f y i t s i n s u r e d of i t s proposed a c t i o n . "(5) I f t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r r e f u s e s t o c o n s e n t t o a s e t t l e m e n t by i t s i n s u r e d w i t h the t o r t f e a s o r , or i f the c a r r i e r denies the claim of i t s insured without a good faith i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o i t s m e r i t s , or i f the c a r r i e r does n o t c o n d u c t i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , t h e c a r r i e r w o u l d , by any o f t h o s e a c t i o n s , waive any right to subrogation against the t o r t - f e a s o r or the t o r t f e a s o r ' s i n s u r e r . "(6) I f t h e u n d e r i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r wants t o p r o t e c t i t s s u b r o g a t i o n r i g h t s , i t must, w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , and, i n any event b e f o r e t h e t o r t - f e a s o r i s r e l e a s e d by t h e c a r r i e r ' s i n s u r e d , a d v a n c e t o i t s i n s u r e d an amount e q u a l t o the t o r t - f e a s o r ' s s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r . " L a m b e r t , 576 So. 2d a t 167. 9 2080638 Progressive argues that i t was not given sufficient i n f o r m a t i o n to t r i g g e r i t s duty to i n v e s t i g a t e Mildred's c l a i m and and to determine whether to consent to the waive indicate i t s subrogation that the insured "proposed settlement and and must the The inform settlement Lambert the t e r m s o f any guidelines carrier proposed of the release" t h a t t h e i n s u r e d must n o t i f y t h e c a r r i e r i f i t i n t e n d s s e e k UIM This b e n e f i t s i n a d d i t i o n to the s e t t l e m e n t b e n e f i t s . information investigate settlement The is rights. UIM triggers and and to in decide the its i t s subrogation carrier position duty Id. to regarding the argument i n t h i s case rights. Id. d i f f i c u l t y with Progressive's t h a t i t d i d i n v e s t i g a t e the the to c l a i m and i t did specifically waive i t s subrogation rights i n response t o the information provided as i t s duty fact, by Mildred triggered. whether The question becomes, information the compliance provided with Lambert investigation. consternation between i f the We over five once think the had, then, by not. division occupants 10 of of whether the consent in the its settlement Kyle was in after given Despite the i t matters insured is been an current proceeds automobile, 2080638 Progressive's the claims a d j u s t e r never q u e s t i o n e d M i l d r e d division of the settlement i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the c l a i m . never have consented subrogation to proceeds about during the P r o g r e s s i v e claims t h a t i t would the settlement and waived its r i g h t s h a d i t known t h a t t h e p r o c e e d s were t o be d i s b u r s e d , as i t c o n t e n d s , " i n e q u i t a b l y , " b u t P r o g r e s s i v e knew t h e amount o f t h e m e d i c a l b i l l s the outset i n c u r r e d by e a c h o c c u p a n t o f i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and the p l a n f o r d i v i d i n g the s e t t l e m e n t injured occupants during that i t s failure to question p r o c e e d s among t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n should at five not now give r i s e to a r i g h t to withdraw the consent to s e t t l e t h a t i t f r e e l y gave i n S e p t e m b e r 2007. N o t h i n g i n Lambert p r o v i d e s method settle, by withdrawn which consent or declared to invalid, and once given, may be provides Progressive o t h e r a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s argument b u t Lambert. a no Progressive i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a r e v e r s a l o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f M i l d r e d on t h i s b a s i s . We turn entitled to now to set off Progressive's against argument Mildred's $40,000 t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n p o l i c y policy to determine its liability 11 that actual limit f o r UIM i t was damages of o f Howard's AIG benefits. Both 2080638 parties admitted to the t r i a l directly on p o i n t multiple claims underinsured court i n a situation exhaust motorist's t h a t no A l a b a m a c a s e i s such the per-occurrence liability policy made by one o f t h o s e m u l t i p l e c l a i m a n t s . that i t s policy liability language as t h i s governs o n e , where limit a n d a UIM c l a i m i s Progressive the determination f o r UIM b e n e f i t s , w h i l e o f an Mildred argues argues of i t s that the language o f P r o g r e s s i v e ' s p o l i c y i s o v e r l y b r o a d and t h e r e f o r e r u n s a f o u l o f t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n t h e UM/UIM s t a t u t e , u n d e r w h i c h a n y t e r m s i n an i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t h a t c o n f l i c t w i t h i t are c o n s i d e r e d v o i d . 707 S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. S c o t t , So. 2d 238, 241-42 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . Section 32-7-23(b)(4) defines an underinsured motor v e h i c l e as a m o t o r v e h i c l e " w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h : ... ( 4 ) The sum of the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y under a l l bodily injury l i a b i l i t y bonds a n d i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s a v a i l a b l e t o an i n j u r e d person a f t e r an a c c i d e n t i s l e s s t h a n t h e damages w h i c h t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r . " See S c o t t , 707 So. 2d the a t 240-241 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h e c r e a t i o n o f UIM c o v e r a g e by a d d i t i o n of subsection ( b ) ( 4 ) to the uninsured-motorist statute). Progressive's policy, 12 as q u o t e d a b o v e , i n d i c a t e s 2080638 that UIM b e n e f i t s will be r e d u c e d by t h e d i f f e r e n c e between any amount p a i d by t h e i n s u r e r o f t h e u n d e r i n s u r e d t o r t f e a s o r and the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y of the underinsured tortfeasor's policy. Progressive's p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n would not generally conflict with statute does t h e UIM mandate t h a t an i n s u r e r damages that liability fall policy" because within and, the a v a i l a b l e typically, from t o make up 707 So. Progressive's by attempting 2d at limits However, less with Mildred another than an UIM not insured's of prevents the d i f f e r e n c e 242. of i t s accepting tortfeasor's policy limits Scott, 32-7-23 ... p a y any p o r t i o n underinsured seeking "§ the insured benefits. argues that a p p l i c a t i o n of i t s p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n i n t h i s case t o reduce t h e amount o f h e r damages by t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t o f Howard's A I G p o l i c y v i o l a t e s § 327 - 2 3 ( b ) ( 4 ) b e c a u s e t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n AIG p o l i c y was n o t a v a i l a b l e t o h e r . with Mildred, limit The t r i a l o f Howard's court n o t i n g a t t h e summary-judgment h e a r i n g p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t s o f Howard's p o l i c y s h o u l d n o t be because the settlement agreed that the considered o f t h e m u l t i p l e c l a i m s was b a s e d on t h e per-occurrence l i m i t of the p o l i c y . 13 2080638 On a p p e a l , P r o g r e s s i v e a r g u e s , b a s e d on Guess v . A l l s t a t e I n s u r a n c e Co., 717 So. 2d 389, 391 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , t h a t i t s p o l i c y l a n g u a g e s h o u l d c o n t r o l t h e amount o f t h e s e t o f f t o which i t i s entitled. I n Guess, this court affirmed the r e d u c t i o n o f an i n s u r e d ' s damages b y t h e sums p a i d t h e i n s u r e d u n d e r t h e t o r t f e a s o r ' s p o l i c y , w h i c h a l s o h a p p e n e d t o be t h e limits the o f t h a t p o l i c y , b e c a u s e t h e UIM p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s i n insured's Guess, insurance policy 717 So. 2d a t 3 9 1 . provided The i n s u r e d f o r that i n Guess h a d a r g u e d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f § 32-7-23 d i d n o t p r o v i d e however, court a f t e r examining determined setoff. that I d . a t 390. the language no l a n g u a g e We t h e n setoff. for a s e t o f f ; of the s t a t u t e , this i n § 32-7-23 p r e c l u d e d a applied the provision of the insured's p o l i c y regarding a s e t o f f , which set o f f against the insured's damages a l l sums p a i d b y t h e owner o r o p e r a t o r o f the u n i n s u r e d / u n d e r s i n s u r e d did hold automobile. I d . A l t h o u g h Guess t h a t , b e c a u s e § 32-7-23 does n o t c o n t a i n prohibiting a s e t o f f , UM/UIM p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s language governing a s e t o f f c a n be a p p l i e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f a s e t o f f due the UM/UIM insurer, Guess does 14 not n e c e s s a r i l y require a 2080638 reversal present o f t h e summary of M i l d r e d i n the case. Mildred claims policy judgment i n f a v o r argues t h a t , because t h i s case i n v o l v e s against limits, the uninsured tortfeasor's a p p l i c a t i o n of Progressive's multiple per-occurrence policy language c o n t r a d i c t s the language of § 32-7-23(b)(4), which d e f i n e s u n d e r i n s u r e d motor v e h i c l e . Section 32-7-23(b)(4) tortfeasor-motorist coverage See S c o t t , bases the 707 So. 2d a t 240-41. determination whether tortfeasor-motorist's to the injured person from amount According b e c a u s e t h e $50,000 p e r - o c c u r r e n c e l i m i t applied a n d b e c a u s e t h a t amount was e x h a u s t e d by t h e payments t o t h e f i v e i n j u r e d o c c u p a n t s o f t h e K y l e the the i n s u r e r i s " l e s s t h a n t h e damages w h i c h the i n j u r e d p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r . " to the accident a i s u n d e r i n s u r e d on w h e t h e r t h e amount o f "available" to Mildred, an available f o r her to recover could automobile, n e v e r be t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t o f Howard's p o l i c y a n d c o u l d o n l y be the a c t u a l amount t h a t she r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e Mildred settlement. contends t h a t c e r t a i n language i n Scott supports h e r p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e amount " a v a i l a b l e " t o h e r u n d e r Howard's AIG policy was not the $25,000 15 per-person limit but was 2080638 instead the received. car actual amount of the settlement proceeds she I n S c o t t , t h e i n s u r e d , S c o t t , was i n j u r e d i n a one- accident i n which a u t o m o b i l e was k i l l e d . one of the three passengers S c o t t , 707 So. 2d a t 239. i n the The d r i v e r o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e , who h a d b e e n i n t o x i c a t e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , h a d p o l i c y l i m i t s p e r a c c i d e n t o f $300,000. 240 n.1. claims However, with the the other driver's passengers insurer had before r e m a i n i n g amount o f c o v e r a g e was $97,500. her claims with and the settled was the d r i v e r ' s I d . a t 240. Scott State Scott their t h e d r i v e r ' s i n s u r e r f o r $77,500, w h i c h $20,000 l e s s t h a n t h e r e m a i n i n g c o v e r a g e u n d e r policy. settled Scott, Id. Id. at Farm, sought which UIM coverage argued that from her father's a provision insurer, in i t s policies r e q u i r e d t h a t a l l a p p l i c a b l e l i a b i l i t y p o l i c i e s be " u s e d up by payments o r j u d g m e n t s " before payment o f UIM b e n e f i t s . i t became r e s p o n s i b l e Id. Because f o r the S c o t t had s e t t l e d f o r $20,000 l e s s t h a n t h e r e m a i n i n g p o l i c y l i m i t s o f t h e d r i v e r ' s insurance, and thus the p o l i c y had e x h a u s t e d , S t a t e Farm a r g u e d any UIM benefits under that n o t been S c o t t was the a p p l i c a b l e 16 UIM "used up" or not e n t i t l e d to policies. Id. 2080638 However, policy the trial provision, establishing then and, Scott's court entered it court refused after total to the enforce State jury at damages returned $159,500, Farm's a verdict the j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t S t a t e Farm f o r $62,000, w h i c h reduced a p p l i c a b l e UIM to $50,000 policies. based Id. on the limits of S t a t e Farm a p p e a l e d , and c o u r t a f f i r m e d , h o l d i n g the p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n i n S t a t e p o l i c i e s v o i d because i t p l a c e d restrictions that approving the statute calculation trial of did the not UIM and benefits on UIM the this Farm's coverage trial court's Scott due the based on the s u b t r a c t i o n f r o m h e r t o t a l damages a w a r d n o t o f t h e amount o f Scott's settlement available coverage ($97,500). Based beyond the policy. AIG under I d ^ a t 242 on r e q u i r e s a UIM policy, ($77,500) Scott, & but the the amount driver's of liability remaining policy 244. Mildred i n s u r e r t o pay argues that an i n s u r e d ' s § 32-7-23(b)(4) damages above and coverage a v a i l a b l e under a t o r t f e a s o r ' s l i a b i l i t y regardless of the policy limits of B e c a u s e t h e $50,000 p e r - o c c u r r e n c e p o l i c y was d i v i d e d between the the K y l e automobile, the t o r t f e a s o r ' s l i m i t o f Howard's f i v e i n j u r e d occupants of M i l d r e d a r g u e s t h a t t h e amount a v a i l a b l e 17 2080638 t o h e r was $7,500. t h e amount o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t Progressive complains she received: the settlement that that proceeds were d i v i d e d i n e q u i t a b l y ; b e c a u s e M i l d r e d i n c u r r e d t h e most i n medical expenses, says P r o g r e s s i v e , a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the settlement received the per-person l i m i t Progressive's she s h o u l d have and, i n f a c t , received should have o f $25,000. argument t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o s e t o f f t h e e n t i r e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t o f Howard's A I G p o l i c y a g a i n s t Mildred's could damages i g n o r e s the f a c t that the per-person n o t have been a w a r d e d t o M i l d r e d . that Mildred accident. suffered $40,000 Progressive damages, the and without claims agreeing damage i n t h e amount o f $16,000 Combined, and considering $25,000 i n coverage and t h a t they had i n c u r r e d $21,500, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Jace's and a v a i l a b l e had a w a r d e d t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t i t i s unreasonable per-person Mildred, made by J e r r y Braswell's J e r r y ' s and J e n n i f e r ' s damages w o u l d have e x c e e d e d other Thus, agree i n damage as a r e s u l t o f t h e s e t t l e d UIM Jennifer, at least i m p l i c i t l y The p a r t i e s limit limit because of that should amount 18 was been o f Howard's A I G p o l i c y . for Progressive $25,000 Mildred t o argue t h a t have not the been awarded available to to her. 2080638 Progressive otherwise. We its provides no authority for its contention 1 have c o n c l u d e d subrogation rights that Progressive's in response to notice r e g a r d i n g A I G ' s s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r c a n n o t now on P r o g r e s s i v e ' s contention d i d not fully whether Progressive's t h a t the comply w i t h Lambert. policy d e c i s i o n to from waive Mildred be s e t a s i d e b a s e d information provided i t Thus, we provisions have governing considered a setoff P r o g r e s s i v e a r g u e s , w i t h o u t c i t a t i o n t o any b i n d i n g o r p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y , see R u l e 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ( r e q u i r i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a n t s u p p o r t h i s , h e r , o r i t s a r g u m e n t w i t h c i t a t i o n s to r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y ) , t h a t a l l o w i n g the i n j u r e d o c c u p a n t s o f t h e K y l e a u t o m o b i l e t o d e t e r m i n e how t o d i v i d e t h e s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s among t h e m s e l v e s p e r m i t t e d them t o " m a x i m i z e t h e amount o f money g o i n g t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who were i n j u r e d t h e l e a s t and m i n i m i z e t h e amount o f money g o i n g t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t were i n j u r e d t h e most, t h u s a t t e m p t i n g t o m a x i m i z e t h e most i n j u r e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y t o o b t a i n UIM c o v e r a g e t h r o u g h P r o g r e s s i v e . " P r o g r e s s i v e then s t a t e s t h a t such "gamesmanship" i s a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y . Although we understand Progressive's concern that a settlement e n c o m p a s s i n g m u l t i p l e c l a i m s w i t h i n t h e same f a m i l y m i g h t e n c o u r a g e a d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t e n t on m a x i m i z i n g UIM c o v e r a g e , see J o n e s v. A u t o m o b i l e C l u b I n t e r - I n s u r a n c e E x c h a n g e , 2 6 Kan. App. 2d 206, 209, 981 P.2d 767, 769-70 (1999) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r c o l l u s i o n i n a group s e t t l e m e n t required remand f o r a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t u a l damages o f t h e m u l t i p l e c l a i m a n t s ) , t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f s u c h an a r g u m e n t must a w a i t a n o t h e r day. Progressive's only l e g a l l y supported a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l i s t h a t t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t s h o u l d be set off against Mildred's damages, and no a u t h o r i t y P r o g r e s s i v e r e l i e s upon s u p p o r t s t h a t c o n c l u s i o n . 1 19 2080638 r e q u i r e d t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n l i m i t o f Howard's A I G p o l i c y t o be s e t o f f a g a i n s t M i l d r e d ' s $40,000 i n damages. Because the a p p l i c a t i o n o f P r o g r e s s i v e ' s p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n i n t h i s case w o u l d r e s u l t i n a more r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n o f underinsured m o t o r v e h i c l e t h a n t h a t i n § 32-7-23 by n o t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e coverage available Progressive to Mildred, we cannot agree with t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o s e t o f f t h e $25,000 p e r - p e r s o n p o l i c y l i m i t o f Howard's A I G p o l i c y a g a i n s t $40,000 i n damages as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c c i d e n t . we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n M i l d r e d ' s Mildred's Accordingly, favor. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, concur i n the r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g s . 20 and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.