Opinion ID: 1881223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Right to Recover Damages

Text: The policy language contained in the recovery provision of the underinsured motorist endorsement in the Nationwide policy does not preclude the recovery of underinsured motorist benefits in this case. Nationwide contends that the language a legal right to recover damages from the recovery portion of its underinsurance endorsement, prevents the applicability of its underinsured motorist coverage in this case. The policy language in question states as follows: RECOVERY 1. Before recovery, we and the insured must agree on two points: a) whether there is a legal right to recover damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle or an underinsured motor vehicle; and if so, b) the amount of such damages. 2. Any judgment against the uninsured or underinsured will be binding on us only if it has our written consent. Under paragraph 1(a), the insured and the company must first agree on whether there is a legal right to recover damages from the underinsured driver. If there is an available legal right to recover damages from the other driver, then Nationwide could and would require that its insured recover those available damages as an offset and a precondition to any recovery of underinsured motorist coverage benefits. If Nationwide and its insured agree that no such legal right to recover exists, then the only remaining question to be agreed upon is the amount of damages under paragraph 1(b). This policy language clearly recognizes the fact that it is not always necessary for an insured to be able to obtain a judgment or recover indemnification from an underinsured motorist as a precondition for recovery of underinsured coverage benefits. The policy language urged by the company was not intended to require that the Hatfields be able to obtain a judgment for the full amount of their damages against an underinsured motorist before obtaining a recovery from the underinsured coverage benefits. As this Court reasoned in Preston , all that was intended is to require that the insured prove the fault of the underinsured motorist and the extent of damages caused by that driver.