Opinion ID: 1717605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: offset of tortfeasor's liability coverage

Text: The appellants first argue on appeal that the trial court was in error in offsetting Van-Beber's $50,000 liability proceeds against the underinsured benefit of $300,000. We agree. This question is resolved by our recent decision in American Casualty Co. v. Mason, 312 Ark. 166, 848 S.W.2d 392 (1993). There, we considered whether the General Assembly intended under Act 335 of 1987, codified as Ark.Code Ann. § 23-89-209 (Supp.1989), for an insured to receive the limits of underinsured motorist coverage over and above any recovery from the tortfeasor's carrier if that recovery was not adequate to fully compensate the insured. We concluded that it did. We noted in Mason that the language of Act 335 was somewhat unclear, but that the changes made to section 23-89-209(a) by Act 209 of 1991, the title of Act 209, and the emergency clause of Act 209, clearly indicate the legislature intended underinsured motorist benefits under Act 335 of 1987 to be provided without regard to the amount of insurance carried by any liable party. 312 Ark. at 170, 848 S.W.2d at 395. Though the accident in the present case occurred prior to the enactment of Act 209 of 1991, as was the case in Mason , the emergency clause in Act 209 amplifies legislative intent relative to passage of the 1987 act: It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that the present underinsured motorist insurance coverage law is being misinterpreted; that under the present misinterpretation persons covered by underinsured motorist coverage may not receive the benefits intended by the law; and that this act clarifies the law and should therefore go into effect immediately in order to resolve the misinterpretation as soon as possible. The appellants were not paid in full by the tortfeasor's coverage and the underinsured benefits. The offset of $50,000 against the underinsured benefits was, therefore, error, and the decision of the trial court is reversed on this point. We remand so that judgment against State Auto in the full amount of $300,000 may be entered.