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
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
Who’s on First to Get Life Insurance Proceeds
Post 5184
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyxQfnUz and at https://lnkd.in/gAd3wqWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Selena Sanchez, et al, No. 2:24-cv-03278-TLN-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (September 3, 2025) the USDC applied interpleader law.
Case Overview
This case involves an interpleader action brought by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Plaintiff-in-Interpleader) against Selena Sanchez and other defendants (Defendants-in-Interpleader).
Key Points
Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Application:
The Plaintiff-in-Interpleader...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
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 ...
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 and became a consultant and expert witness for lawyers representing insurers and lawyers ...
APPRAISAL AWARD SETS AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM INSURER
Post 5180
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evidence-required-prove-breach-contract-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-rfelc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
In Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 01-23-00844-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025) Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy with Homeowners of ...
