To Recover UIM Benefits the At Fault Driver Must be Underinsured
Post 5092
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gpe6BxQJ and at https://lnkd.in/gVzKcDSr and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Angie Foresee appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint and awarding attorney fees in favor of Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). In Angie Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property And Casualty Insurance Company, and DOES I-V, No. 51902, Court of Appeals of Idaho (June 2, 2025) the trial court award was affirmed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Foresee was involved in a rear-end collision with a third-party driver (at-fault driver). At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver carried a liability automobile insurance policy that had a $100,000 coverage limit per person. Foresee had underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) that included a $50,000 coverage limit per person through Metropolitan. Foresee alleged damages in excess of $100,000.
Foresee settled with the at-fault driver's insurer. She then made a claim against Metropolitan for the limits of her UIM policy. Metropolitan denied coverage and Foresee commenced the present suit. The district court held Metropolitan's offset provision is valid and fully enforceable. The district court awarded attorney fees to Metropolitan.
ANALYSIS
Foresee argued that she is entitled to $25,000 UIM coverage benefits regardless of the offset limit provisions in the contract. Metropolitan argued that the only statutory mandate imposed on the insurer is to offer UIM coverage.
The most straightforward resolution was rooted in the definition of the UIM coverage. Applying the plain meaning of the words, the at-fault driver did not fit the definition of an underinsured motorist. The at-fault driver's liability limit of $100,000 was greater than, not less than, the $50,000 limit of Foresee's UIM coverage. Accordingly, the at-fault driver's vehicle was not an underinsured motor vehicle, and Metropolitan need not provide coverage.
Illusory Coverage
Foresee argued that Metropolitan's UIM coverage of $50,000 was illusory because of the offset provision. When a policy only provides an illusion of coverage for its premiums, the policy limitations and exclusions will be considered void as violating public policy. Therefore, when the insured pays a premium for a benefit that would never be available, the coverage is illusory and is contrary to public policy yet the coverage was not illusory.
Requirement to Provide UIM Coverage
To provide is not synonymous with to pay out. When an insurance company provides coverage, it offers coverage under certain conditions – not a guarantee of an automatic payment. Thus, an insurer may provide coverage under the terms of the policy but may not pay out if the claim does not meet the policy's requirements.
Public Policy
Foresee argues that reduction of UIM coverage below $25,000 is void as against public policy.
Foresee's argument rests on the premise that Idaho public policy allows only excess UIM coverage that would have provided the UIM benefits in addition to the at-fault driver's liability policy. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has specifically articulated that both excess and offset policies are legitimate in Idaho.
District Court's Award of Attorney Fees
The district court recognized that Foresee did not file a challenge to Metropolitan's requested grounds for attorney fees or the reasonableness of the attorney fees. There was no dispute that Metropolitan was the prevailing party.
The trial court's judgment was affirmed and the Court of Appeals awarded costs on appeal to Metropolitan as the prevailing party.
ZALMA OPINION
When a state supreme court establishes a rule of law for its state trial and appeals courts must follow the decision of the Supreme Court and a challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling can be found, as the Idaho Court of Appeals did, is frivolous so Foresee not only lost her case but was required to pay the insurer's attorneys fees at trial and appeal.
(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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
