Opinion ID: 2361094
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicable Limit of Liability

Text: Plaintiff's policy provides UM/UIM coverage in the amounts of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Mrs. Emmons argues that because she had a claim for damages resulting from wrongful death, she should have access to her policy's per accident limit of liability. The UM/UIM section of Mrs. Emmons' policy contains a Limit of Liability clause that reads in pertinent part, The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for this coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages resulting from any one accident. It makes no reference to the policy's per person limit of liability. Unlike Hartford, many insurers place language in the UM/UIM portions of their policies that restricts the right of recovery to the per person limit when only one person has suffered actual bodily injury and other claimants pursue consequential claims such as claims for wrongful death or loss of consortium. [17] Such a clause was involved in Gill v. Nationwide , in which a surviving spouse and children of the decedent made a claim for UM/UIM benefits from their own carrier and argued that the per accident limit should apply rather than the per person limit. [18] Their policy provided: Bodily injury limits shown for any person are for all legal damages, including loss of services, claimed by anyone for bodily injury to one person as a result of one accident. Subject to this limit for any one person, the total limit of our liability shown is for all damages, including loss of services, due to bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence. [19] The clause cited above does what Hartford's UM/UIM Limit of Liability clause does not do: it consolidates all potential damages flowing from the bodily injury of one person into the per person limit. [20] The UM/UIM section of Mrs. Emmons' policy does not contain language that restricts the right of recovery to the per person limit when only one person has suffered actual bodily injury. Contract interpretation that adds a limitation not found in the plain language of the contract is untenable. [21] Since [i]t is the obligation of the insurer to state clearly the terms of the policy, [22] we hold that the per accident rather than the per person limit of liability applies to Mrs. Emmons' claim for UM/UIM benefits. Accordingly, we reverse the Superior Court's ruling.