Opinion ID: 2533739
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Coverage Matters at Issue in this Case

Text: We first consider our previous decisions on the issue of separate per person limits for NIED and loss of society claims to provide a context for understanding the matters of coverage particular to this case. Although we have not yet defined conclusively the parameters for these claims, we addressed the question whether NIED claims qualify for separate policy limits in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lawrence. [5] In Lawrence, the phrasing of the coverage provided by the UIM policy for bodily injury was identical to that in the Dowdys' policy. [6] We determined that under such a policy two requirements must be met in order for the victim's parents to be eligible for separate policy limits: The parents must demonstrate that (1) they suffered bodily injury; and (2) they were injured in the same accident as the victim. [7] We did not ultimately assess whether the Lawrences had met these requirements because we determined that State Farm had waived both the issue of whether the emotional distress claimed by the parents constituted bodily injury and the issue of whether the parents had been in the same accident as their child. [8] The issue of separate policy limits for loss of consortium also arose in Wold v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co. [9] in connection with the question whether liability coverage had been exhausted. Heidi Wold, a passenger in Kirby Smith's car, lost her life in an accident that occurred when Smith swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle in his lane of traffic. The Wold parents wanted to recover underinsured motorist benefits from their insurer, Progressive. Progressive denied such coverage on the basis that the liability coverage under Smith's policy with Allstate had not yet been exhausted because the Wolds' claim for loss of consortium had triggered separate per person policy limits under the Allstate policy. [10] In Wold, we decided that it was unnecessary to resolve definitively whether a loss-of-society claim should trigger separate per person coverage because Progressive and Allstate both viewed a claim for loss of consortium or society  as opposed to a claim for NIED  as a derivative claim that would not trigger a separate `per person' Allstate policy limit. [11] Because both parties agreed on the proper treatment of the claim it was unnecessary for us to rule on the question of whether separate per person policy limits should generally apply to loss of consortium. [12] In a footnote to the opinion, we recognized that the issue may not be amenable to a definitive resolution, since much of the case law cited by the parties in their supplemental briefing seems to suggest that whether a loss-of-society claim should trigger separate per person coverage may hinge more on a particular policy's definition of the scope of its bodily injury coverage than on the inherent nature of a cause of action for loss of society.[ [13] ] An added layer of complexity in determining these coverage issues, therefore, is that many variations exist in policy language and scope. As our footnote in Wold suggests, these variations may prevent the court from making a broad or general determination as to whether separate policy limits apply and may require a specialized analysis of the policy language in question. [14]