Opinion ID: 1472722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motorists Mutual's Appeal

Text: We first address the issue of Jeffrey's UIM coverage. The circuit court concluded that Jeffrey was entitled to $200,000.00 of UIM coverage. Conversely, Motorists contends that no such coverage was available to Jeffrey and that a directed verdict was mandated upon this issue. Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 50.01. Motorists contends that UIM coverage is unavailable to Jeffrey because KRS 304.39-320 contemplates such coverage only in multi-vehicle accidents. However, we are reminded of the following: KRS 304.39-320, Underinsured motorist coverage, is part of the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA), and, as such, is remedial legislation which should be generally construed to accomplish its stated purposes. Cf. Bishop v. Allstate Ins. Co., Ky., 623 S.W.2d 865 (1981). LaFrange v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, Ky., 700 S.W.2d 411, 413 (1985). The stated purposes of the MVRA are enunciated in KRS 304.39-010. One such purpose found in subsection (3) reads as follows: To encourage prompt medical treatment and rehabilitation of motor vehicle accident victim by providing for prompt payment of needed medical care and rehabilitation. If KRS 304.39-320 is construed to effect the above-stated purpose, we believe it cannot be so narrowly interpreted as to encompass only multi-vehicle accidents. We think such construction repugnant to KRS 304.39-320 and to the very pith of the MVRA. Motorists Mutual also avers that Jeffrey is not entitled to UIM coverage because such coverage is specifically excluded from an insured vehicle. In support of same, Motorists relies upon the following policy language: When the term uninsured motor vehicle is used in Part C, it shall also include underinsured motor vehicle ....