Opinion ID: 2286079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Triggering UIM Coverage

Text: The determination of whether UIM coverage is triggered is made in accordance with the statutory definition of an underinsurance motor vehicle, 18 Del. C. § 3902(b)(2) [5] : An underinsured motor vehicle is one for which there may be bodily injury liability coverage in effect, but the limits of bodily injury liability coverage under all bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident total less than the limits provided by the uninsured motorist coverage. These limits shall be stated in the declaration sheet of the policy. The language of Section 3902(b)(2) is unambiguous. [6] A motorist is underinsured if the limits of bodily injury liability coverage under all bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident total less than the limits provided by the uninsured motorist coverage ... [as] stated in the declaration sheet of the policy.  (emphasis added). This Court has held that the calculation of the total amount of UIM coverage available is separate and distinct from the determination of whether the UIM coverage of a specific individual policy is triggered. [7] In Peebles, we stated, that presentation of record evidence which comports with the unambiguous definition in Section 3902(b)(2) is a condition precedent to pursuing an underinsurance claim. [8] This determination affects the right of the UIM insured to any payments under those coverages, as opposed to the more common stacking issue which determines the amount of recovery under UM or UIM provisions. [9] Accordingly, this Court held that UIM coverage is triggered or available only after a claimant establishes the status of the tortfeasor as underinsured pursuant to subsection (b)(2). [10] In Williams, we held that [t]he focus of the unambiguous definition of underinsurance in Section 3902(b) is on the symmetry between the limits of the claimant's [UIM] coverage and the limits of the tortfeasor's coverage. [11] In Williams, the limits of the tortfeasor's liability coverage were identical to the limits of the claimants underinsured motorist coverage. [12] Accordingly, in Williams, we held that the tortfeasor was not an underinsured motorist within the meaning of Section 3902(b)(2). [13] In Williams, only a single underinsurance policy was at issue.