Opinion ID: 2453589
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Minimum Liability versus Full Recovery UM/UIM Statutes

Text: Because section 10-4-609(1)(a) ties the required offer of UM/UIM coverage to the amounts established in the MVFRA, Allstate urges us to follow the minimum liability approach adopted by some appellate courts in states with similar UM/UIM statutes. Under this approach, courts have declined to include umbrella policies within their state's UM/UIM mandate, reasoning that their legislatures intended only to offer the insured the option of matching what he or she would have collected had the other party carried the minimum coverage required under the financial responsibility laws of their state. See Lisa K. Gregory, Annotation, Excess or Umbrella Insurance Policy as Providing Coverage for Accidents with Uninsured or Underinsured Motorists, 2 A.L.R.5th 922 § 2[a] (1992 & 2010 Supp.). Although the court of appeals found this approach persuasive, we decline to view the distinction between minimum liability and full recovery statutes as dispositive of the issue before us. To label Colorado's UM/UIM statute a minimum liability statute based on the reference to the MVFRA in section 10-4-609(1) oversimplifies the interplay between sections 10-4-609(1)(a) and (2). Read together, these provisions make clear that insureds may elect UM/UIM coverage in greater than the MVFRA minimum limits. Thus, we instead rely on the plain language of Colorado's UM/UIM statute to hold that umbrella policies are not included within the UM/UIM mandate of section 10-4-609(1)(a).