Opinion ID: 1886272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Williams Holding Reaffirmed

Text: In this case, White's UIM policy limits were identical to the tortfeasor's liability limits. White argues in this appeal that because the actual compensation she received from the tortfeasor's insurance policy was less than the maximum allowed by her UIM policy, she should be able to access her UIM coverage. She asserts that the total amount she received from Progressive for her injuries was $10,000 but she was entitled to $15,000. White relies on Hurst v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. [20] and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peebles [21] to support her argument that the focus of the inquiry should be the actual amount she received for her injuries and not the limits of coverage. Hurst and Peebles are inapplicable, however, because they speak only to situations where a UIM policy has already been triggered under section 3902(b)(2). [22] Here, as in Williams, White's policy limits and the tortfeasor's policy limits were identical. Section 3902(b)(2) expressly states that the limits of the insurance policy control when determining whether the claimant can access her UIM benefits. [23] The Superior Court concluded that, because the policy limits were identical, Williams controls and the court could not consider the actual amount White received to determine whether she could access her UIM benefits. We agree. The Superior Court properly concluded that the tortfeasor in this case cannot be classified as an underinsured motorist and, therefore, White cannot access her UIM benefits.