Opinion ID: 1241755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Insurance companies improperly avoid their statutory obligations through exclusions

Text: This Court has repeatedly held that insurance companies are statutorily required, in every single automobile insurance policy that they sell, to offer the insurance consumer the ability to purchase uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with limits up to or equal to the limits of liability coverage bought by the consumer. It makes no sense to say that the insurance company is required by law to offer particular levels of coveragebut then say the insurance company can riddle that coverage with so many exclusions that the coverage is illusory. The anti-stacking exclusion at issue in this case attempts to limit coverage to less than the amount which an insurance company is required to offer under West Virginia law, and should have been declared void and unenforceable. W.Va.Code, 33-6-31(b) states, in pertinent part, that within an automobile insurance policy an insurance company: ... shall provide an option to the insured with appropriately adjusted premiums to pay the insured all sums which he shall legally be entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle up to an amount not less than limits of bodily injury liability insurance and property damage liability insurance purchased by the insured without setoff against the insured's policy or any other policy. We have repeatedly construed this language to mean that an insurance company is required to offer an insurance consumer the right to purchase an amount of uninsured motorist coverage, in every automobile insurance policy, equal to the level of liability coverage. This is a mandatory requirement it is not an option on the part of the insurance company. In Bias v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 179 W.Va. 125, 365 S.E.2d 789 (1987), we interpreted this clause in W. Va. Code, 33-6-31(b) to mean that an ability to purchase a higher limit of uninsured motorist coverage shall be offered [to the consumer], and this [statutory] language must be afforded a mandatory connotation. 179 W.Va. at 127, 365 S.E.2d at 791. The insurance company must offer the coverage; the insurance consumer then has the option to purchase that coverage. We went on to hold, at Syllabus Point 1, that Where an offer of optional coverage is required by statute, the insurer has the burden of proving that an effective offer was made, and that any rejection of said offer by the insured was knowing and informed. In Riffle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 W.Va. 54, 410 S.E.2d 413 (1991), we made clear that if an insurance company fails to make an effective offer of the level of un- or underinsured motorist coverage required by W.Va.Code, 33-6-31(b), then under Bias that level of insurance will be read into the policy. As we stated in Syllabus Point 2, when an insurer fails to prove an effective offer and a knowing and intelligent waiver by the insured, the insurer must provide the minimum coverage required to be offered under the statute. We held in Riffle that, in the absence of a proper offer, the minimum amount of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that an insurance company will be required to provide under the statute is `an amount not less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance and property damage liability insurance.' 186 W.Va. at 55, 410 S.E.2d at 414. The Legislature has even given insurance companies a way to make the offer of coverage, and requires that a written formapproved by the insurance commissionerbe sent to policyholders telling them the various amounts of un- and under underinsured motorist coverage they can buy, and the premiums for those various coverages. W.Va. Code, 33-6-31d [1993]. [2] See also, Westfield Ins. Co. v. Bell, 203 W.Va. 305, 507 S.E.2d 406 (1998) ( per curiam ). I am bothered by the majority opinion in the instant case because Bias holds that an insurance company must offer a certain amount of un- and under-insured motorist coverage. If the insurance company fails to make a commercially reasonable offer of coverage, then un- and under-insured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the amount of liability coverage is automatically read into the policy. Contrary to this rule, Russell v. State Auto tells insurance companies they can meet their statutory obligation by offering un- and under-insured motorist coverage in every automobile insurance policy with limits equal to the level of liability coveragebut can condition and limit that coverage by including numerous exceptions, so long as the insurance consumer is only asked to pay appropriately adjusted premiums. This contradiction undermines the Legislature's goal of fully protecting responsible citizens and their families and guests from irresponsible, un- and under-insured motorists. The Legislature could not have intended to require an insurance company to offer un- and under-insured motorist coverage, and then allowed the insurance company to void that coverage through the use of exclusions. I agree that when a consumer purchases an automobile insurance policy, under W.Va. Code, 33-6-31(b), the insurance company is required to offer the consumer the ability to purchase un- and under-insured motorist coverage in an amount up to the level of bodily injury liability insurance and property damage liability insurance purchased by the consumer. But any attempt to limit the amount of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage purchased by the consumer pursuant to W.Va.Code, 33-6-31(b) should be void as against public policy. III.