Opinion ID: 1232510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Issue of Bodily Injury

Text: ¶ 22. The issue in this case is whether Nancy Langridge is entitled to the UIM coverage of State Farm's policy for her husband's death. Both lower courts concluded that she was not, and both based their decision in part on the rationale that Nancy Langridge must have suffered her own bodily injury to qualify for coverage. ¶ 23. This is not completely accurate. Nancy Langridge notes that the policy language does not include a prerequisite that an insured must have suffered bodily injury to recover. State Farm concedes as much in its brief: The defendant is correct to state in her brief... that ... she is legally entitled to collect damages for her husband's death.... The defendant refers to a passage of the decision of the court of appeals in which [the court] observed that under the policy, only those who have suffered bodily injury may recover. This language ... is an overstatement .... This language would be correct if it is amended so that the bodily injury must be caused by an underinsured motor vehicle as the policy requires. ¶ 24. The Langridges' policy had $100,000 per person UIM coverage. The drunk driver had $150,000 policy limits. If the drunk driver had had only $50,000 policy limits, Mrs. Langridge would have had a derivative claim for the $50,000 difference between the tortfeasor's policy limit and her $100,000 per person UIM coverage. If the Langridges' policy had had $300,000 per person UIM coverage, Mrs. Langridge would have had a derivative claim for the $150,000 difference between the tortfeasor's $150,000 policy limit and her $300,000 per person UIM coverage. Parenthetically, if the drunk driver had had no insurance at all, Mrs. Langridge would have had a derivative claim for the $100,000 uninsured motorist coverage of her policy. In each of these instances, Mrs. Langridge did not have to suffer bodily injury herself in order to recover. ¶ 25. While State Farm concedes that Nancy Langridge need not have suffered a bodily injury to recover under every fact situation, it nonetheless asserts that she is not entitled to coverage in this fact situation, because she does not have a claim under the policy independent of her husband's bodily injury; she has only a derivative claim. State Farm's position is that the drunk driver's vehicle does not meet the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle as to William Langridge; consequently, it cannot meet the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle as to Mrs. Langridge because her claim derives from her husband's bodily injury. As a result, her claim falls outside the coverage provision of the policy.