are simultaneously in an adversarial and representative relationship with their customer. I'm not sure the extent to which we want to say that by representing their customer's interests here, they are obliged not to question it later. But I don't like the both-ways, either. (Back home, there is an issue with home insurance. You couldn't get flood and storm insurance with the same company partly for this reason. As long as it wasn't from the same source, the flood insurance people could say it was the rain and the storm insurance people could say that it was rising water that damaged the home.) With all this in mind, is it wise to even bother paying for un- or under-insured coverage with your primary auto insurance company? If the defacto result of making a claim is the clusterfuck of positioning it puts people in, it seems like possibly less than a wise decision. Argh -- you're right about the lack of a life/injury policy, though my point about the conflict of interest presumably remains (I'm assuming that her UIM and Liability insurance are through the same provider). Really sloppy thinking by me nonetheless. As someone who has led the design and pricing of insurance contracts for millions all I will say is that I never bought more uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage than was required by law. I insured myself and my family for risk and avoided duplicate coverages to reduce costs. My choice might have been different if I transported