Case Title: Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Estate of Lawton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-01-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Estate of Lawton (2001-239); 
175 Vt. 475; 820 A.2d 196

2003 VT 7

[Filed 31-Jan-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2003 VT 7

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-239

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002

  Concord General Mutual Insurance	}	APPEALED FROM:
  Company                               }
                                        }
       v.	                        }	Franklin Superior Court
                                        }	
  Estate of Michael S. Lawton	        }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. S 140-00 Fc

                                                Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.   In light of this Court's recent decision in Colwell v.
  Allstate Insurance Co., Nos. 2000-053 & 2000-410 (Vt. Jan. 31, 2003), which
  controls the outcome of this dispute, we reverse the superior court's grant
  of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Michael Lawton, and order that
  summary judgment be entered for plaintiff, Concord General Mutual Insurance
  Company.  In Colwell, this Court determined that 23 V.S.A. § 941(f)
  entitles an injured insured to underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) only
  when the total limits of liability laid out in the tortfeasor's policy are
  less than the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage stated in the
  insured's policy, not when the injured insured's awarded share is less than
  his UIM coverage.  Id.  Here, the tortfeasor's liability coverage exceeded
  the UIM coverage provided to the injured insured by plaintiff.  As such, he
  did not fall into the statutory definition of underinsured.  Despite the
  fact that defendant actually recovered less than the limit of UIM coverage
  provided by plaintiff, he is not entitled to UIM benefits. 

       Reversed.	

                                       BY THE COURT:

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       James L. Morse, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice