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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
A Suit Filed Before the Claim Exists is Fatal
Post 4870
Posted on October 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Louis Briggs v. Shaun Wimberly; Somerset Services, Inc.; And Wimberly & Associates, PLLC, and Louis Briggs v. Shaun Wimberly And Wimberly & Associates, PLLC Nos. 2024-CA-1471-MR, 2025-CA-1366-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 9, 2026) Louis Briggs was arrested in 2014 after an incident with police and charged with several offenses, including third-degree assault.
Probable cause was found and an indictment was returned, but the charges were eventually dismissed. His attorney, Shaun Wimberly, then filed a federal civil rights suit for Briggs in a United States district court, which also asserted state-law claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Briggs blamed Wimberly for the result, fired him, and appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
While the federal appeal was pending, Briggs filed a legal malpractice action against Wimberly in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The Sixth ...
Plaintiff’s Reading of the Policy is Plaintiff’s Reasonable Allegations
Posted on October 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4868
CLASS ACTION THAT STATES A SIMPLE CLEAR AND PLAUSIBLE CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVES
In Sheila Marino v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, No. 2:25-cv-02200-JNW, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (October 13, 2026) defendant Farmers New World Life Insurance Company’s (“FNWL”) moved to dismiss Plaintiff Sheila Marino’s putative class action involving flexible universal life insurance.
Marino filed a putative class action in King County Superior Court alleging: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
She pleaded two theories: an “overcharge” theory and an “underpayment of interest” theory asked the Court to take judicial notice of historical Federal Funds Effective Rates.
THE LAW
Pleading Standard.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a ...
Alleged Defamatory Statements Must be Of and Concerning Plaintiffs
Posted on October 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Prove Defamation the Statement Must be Of and Concerning the Plaintiffs
Post 4867
In Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 04-25-00519-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio (October 14, 2026) Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu appealed from the trial court’s granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) on their defamation claim.
BACKGROUND
Moloney and Cantu sued USAA for defamation, alleging that they are the principals of Informed Roofing & Restoration, LLC (“Informed Roofing”), which is primarily engaged in the residential roofing repair and replacement business, and that an employee or agent of USAA had made false and defamatory statements to the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) concerning them.
Specifically, Moloney and Cantu alleged that an employee of ...
