Insured May Limit the Extent of UM Coverage Acquired
You Only Get What You Pay For
Post 5068
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqivVZD2 and at https://lnkd.in/gybKeWtf, or at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Sonya Harness was employed as a home health nurse with Volunteer Staffing, Inc. On July 10, 2021, Ms. Harness was injured in a two-car collision while driving her vehicle in connection with her employment. She later sought uninsured motorist benefits under a business automobile liability policy issued to her employer.
In Sonya Harness v. John Mansfield et al., No. E2023-00726-COA-R3-CV, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville (April 30, 2025) resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Arguing that the uninsured motorist coverage in the business policy did not apply to the Ms. Harness’ accident, the insurer successfully moved for summary judgment.
At the time of the accident, she was driving her own vehicle, a Chevrolet Trax, within the course and scope of her employment. Ms. Harness had insurance coverage for her vehicle under a personal automobile liability insurance policy issued by Tennessee Farmer’s Mutual Insurance Company. Her policy included uninsured motorist coverage. Volunteer Staffing maintained a business automobile liability policy issued by The Cincinnati Insurance Company that also provided liability coverage for Ms. Harness under these circumstances.
The Commercial Policy
By its plain terms, the policy limited uninsured motorist coverage to injuries that occurred while the insured was occupying an automobile specifically listed in the declarations. Because Ms. Harness’s Chevrolet Trax was not listed, the insurer argued that the uninsured motorist coverage in the Cincinnati policy did not apply.
ANALYSIS
By statute, every general automobile liability policy issued or renewed in Tennessee must include uninsured motorist coverage. The named insured may reject coverage completely or select lower limits not less than the minimum coverage limits in [he Financial Responsibility Law in a signed writing.
It is undisputed that Ms. Harness was an additional “insured” under the liability provisions of the Cincinnati policy. As required by the statute, the Cincinnati policy includes uninsured motorist coverage with limits equal to the liability limits for bodily injury.
The Coverage Form specifies that each type of coverage in the policy only applies to the automobiles shown as covered. By its plain terms, the policy expressly limits uninsured motorist coverage to injuries that occur while occupying the one described vehicle and Ms. Harness suffered her injuries while driving her vehicle, the Chevrolet Trax not the described vehicle.
The statute mandates the coverage amount. Otherwise, the statute does not explicitly address the scope of the required coverage or dictate the form of coverage. Ms. Harness contended that the statutory requirement is “for the protection of persons insured under the policy” who are injured by an uninsured motorist. And she is an “insured” under the liability provisions of the Cincinnati policy.
The Court of Appeals noted that the statutory language does not guarantee uninsured motorist coverage for Ms. Harness in this instance. Ms. Harness’ rights under the policy necessarily depend on the choices and selections of coverage made by the named insured Volunteer Staffing that chose to include the mandated amount of uninsured motorist coverage in the Cincinnati policy. Volunteer Staffing decided to limit that coverage to specifically listed vehicles and its choices did not contravene the plain language of the uninsured motorist statute.
Because the Cincinnati policy unambiguously limits uninsured motorist coverage to injuries that occur while the insured is occupying a specifically listed vehicle and because Ms. Harness was not in that automobile the statute allowed Cincinnati to exclude from UM coverage. The limitation in the Cincinnati policy appears to be designed to avoid duplicate coverage. As such, it is a permissible limitation under the statute. The Cincinnati policy does not provide uninsured motorist coverage for Ms. Harness’s injuries.
ZALMA OPINION
Statutory interpretation by an appellate court must be reasonable and directed to fulfill the intention of the Legislature. Finding that it was appropriate to allow an insured and its insurer to limit its uninsured motorist coverage to named vehicles and limit Ms. Harness’ coverage to that she purchased for her own vehicle and not allow her to double the available coverage by recovering from her employer’s insurance which the insured refused to purchase. Reasonable interpretation made it appropriate to affirm the trial court.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Intentionally Shooting a Woman With A Rifle is Murder
Post 5196
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 5150 posts.
You Plead Guilty You Must Accept the Sentence
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Mark D. Redfield, No. 20 WDA 2025, No. J-S24010-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 19, 2025) the appellate court reviewed the case of Mark D. Redfield, who pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for killing April Dunkle with malice using a rifle.
Affirmation of Sentence:
The sentencing court’s judgment was affirmed, and jurisdiction was relinquished, concluding no abuse of discretion occurred.
Reasonable Inference on Trigger Pulling:
The sentencing court reasonably inferred from the guilty plea facts that the appellant pulled the trigger causing the victim’s death, an inference supported by the record and consistent with the plea.
Guilty Plea Facts:
The appellant admitted during the plea hearing...
The Judicial Proceedings Privilege
Post 5196
Posted on September 25, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Judicial Proceeding Privilege Limits Litigation
In David Camp, and Laura Beth Waller v. Professional Employee Services, d/b/a Insurance Branch, and Brendan Cassity, CIVIL No. 24-3568 (RJL), United States District Court, District of Columbia (September 22, 2025) a defamation lawsuit filed by David Camp and Laura Beth Waller against Insurance Branch and Brendon Cassity alleging libel based on statements made in a letter accusing them of mishandling funds and demanding refunds and investigations.
The court examined whether the judicial proceedings privilege applieD to bar the defamation claims.
Case background:
Plaintiffs Camp and Waller, executives of NOSSCR and its Foundation, sued defendants Insurance Branch and Cassity over a letter alleging financial misconduct and demanding refunds and audits. The letter ...
Misrepresentation or Concealment of a Material Fact Supports Rescission
Post 5195
Don’t Lie to Your Insurance Company
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v6zefq8-untrue-application-for-insurance-voids-policy.html and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Imani Page v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, No. 370765, Court of Appeals of Michigan (September 22, 2025) because defendant successfully established fraud in the procurement, and requested rescission, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant was entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio.
FACTS
Plaintiff's Application:
Plaintiff applied for an insurance policy with the defendant, indicating that the primary use of her SUV would be for "Pleasure/Personal" purposes.
Misrepresentation:
Plaintiff misrepresented that she would not use the SUV for food delivery, but records show she was compensated for delivering food.
Accident:
Plaintiff's SUV was involved in an accident on August ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
