Opinion ID: 2624117
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The question on appeal

Text: The core issue as framed by the parties is whether an offer and a tacit refusal of UM coverage render the UM coverage applicable and identifi[able] so as to relieve the assignee insurer under HRS § 431:10C-408, see supra note 2, of the duty to compensate the injured claimant. To address this particular query would require us to construe the terms applicable and identifi[able]. In that regard, we do not believe that the law of this jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction or the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (UMVARA) [9] or its commentary, § 18(a)(1), (3) & cmt., 14 U.L.A. 82 (2005 & Supp.2006), are illuminating. Fortunately, we need not engage in an exercise in statutory interpretation because an issue of fact is outcome-dispositive. Underlying First Insurance's argument are two questionable premises: (1) that First Insurance indeed made an effective offer of UM coverage; and (2) that such coverage would have appli[ed] to Willis's status as a passenger in a car that was not her own. We conclude that First Insurance did not, as a matter of law, offer Willis applicable UM coverage.