Opinion ID: 2509465
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: GEICO v. Graham-Gonzalez

Text: The superior court in its order granting partial summary judgment to Graham-Gonzalez set forth the underlying facts as follows: On June 20, 1996 Sandra Graham-Gonzalez was a passenger in a car driven by her sister, Christine Ivanoff. At the intersection of Abbott Road and Lake Otis Parkway, Ivanoff turned into the path of an oncoming van. As a result of the collision, Graham-Gonzalez sustained serious injuries. The car that Ivanoff was driving at the time of the accident was owned and insured by her mother, Judith Martin; GEICO insured the vehicle. Graham-Gonzalez settled her liability claim for the policy limits, and then presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under the GEICO policy. GEICO thereafter tendered to Graham-Gonzalez what the insurer considered to be the full UIM policy limits, with interest and attorney's fees. GEICO agreed that by accepting the check, Graham-Gonzalez was not waiving her right to assert that the coverage was greater than the amount stated in Martin's insurance policy. Graham-Gonzalez then filed this lawsuit. After reviewing the pleadings submitted by the parties, the court makes the following factual findings. 1. Judith Martin applied for an automobile liability insurance policy from GEICO Indemnity in February 1993. At that time GEICO recommended to Martin that she carry UIM coverage limits equal to the limits of her bodily injury liability coverage. 2. The Selection Form gave Martin the opportunity to reject UIM coverage, or to select from a range of coverage limits up to $1,000,000/$2,000,000. 3. At that time Martin selected UIM coverage equal to her bodily injury liability coverage, which was $50,000/$100,000. 4. During the time between July 1993 and January 1995, GEICO sent Martin a policy renewal package that included a Premium Statement, Declaration Pages, and Vehicle Page. 5. The information Martin received during this time showed that she was paying for certain coverages, including the UIM coverage. 6. During this time Martin consistently selected $50,000/$100,000 UIM coverage. 7. To save her money on premiums, Martin's coverage was changed to GEICO in March 1995; at that time she received a new policy number. The new number was XXX-XX-XX. 8. In March 1995 Martin received a Selection Form that, like previous forms she had received, presented the option of selecting limits higher than $50,000/$100,000. The Selection Form was M-316 AK. 9. In April 1995 Martin received a packet from GEICO that set forth her coverage limits and the cost for each coverage; this included the price she would pay for her UIM insurance. 10. Between April 1995 and May 1996 Martin received information and renewal packets from GEICO. Martin was routinely informed that she had $50,000/ $100,000 UIM coverage, and was informed of the cost of that coverage. 11. During the time that she was insured by GEICO, Martin did not make any changes to her UIM limits. 12. Policy number XXX-XX-XX was the policy in effect on the day of the accident involving Graham-Gonzalez. 13. Martin understood that if she selected higher limits for UIM coverage, she would have to pay more to GEICO. 14. None of the forms or papers GEICO provided to Martin prior to the accident contained the cost of the optional limits for UIM coverage. 15. None of the forms or papers GEICO provided to Martin prior to the accident advised Martin that the optional limits for UIM coverage could be obtained by paying relatively modest premium increases. 16. Neither Martin nor her insurance agent, Win Fowler, can recall discussing the cost of optional UIM coverage. 17. There is no evidence that Fowler or any other GEICO representative verbally furnished Martin the cost of the optional higher limits set forth in Form M-316 AK. 18. GEICO did not orally present to Martin the cost of the optional limits for UIM coverage prior to June 20, 1996. 19. The premium for automobile liability coverage is set based upon the insurance risk. As a consequence, insurance companies in Alaska cannot, and do not, establish a rate for all policyholders who want certain coverage. For example, a young driver with numerous speeding tickets and accidents would pay more for liability coverage than a fifty-year-old driver with a spotless record. 20. Unlike liability insurance, insurance companies can establish a premium for all policyholders who seeks [sic] the same UIM coverage. 21. GEICO now provides its policyholders in Alaska with a form that indicates the premium price for optional limits of UIM coverage. 22. The GEICO UIM coverage form that provides information concerning cost of coverage now states: