Opinion ID: 4015736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Offset of the Other Motorist’s Payment

Text: [¶16] Graf argues that it was improper for the court to offset available coverage with the $50,000 of settlement proceeds because the arbitration panel had already offset the damages award with the same settlement amount. [¶17] “In the event of payment to any person under uninsured vehicle coverage . . . the insurer shall be entitled to the proceeds of any settlement or recovery from any person legally responsible for the bodily injury . . . .” 24-A M.R.S. § 2902(4). When the total damages are greater than the amount of UM/UIM coverage, we have previously determined that this language mandates that insurers offset the amount of coverage available in the UM/UIM policy, rather than the amount of damages incurred, by the amount actually paid by the tortfeasor. Farthing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 ME 131, ¶ 7, 10 A.3d 667. We have 3 Graf argues that because the policy language is found under a heading “When [UM/UIM Coverage] Does Not Apply,” the exclusion only applies when one has not opted into UM/UIM coverage. She further argues that the language is ambiguous. We are not persuaded. If the provision only applied to an insured who was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage in the first place, there would be no reason to list the exclusion. As the policy language is not reasonably susceptible to different interpretations, it is not ambiguous. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Vallee, 687 A.2d 956, 957 (Me. 1996). 9 explained that the reason for doing so is that “[t]he goal of the UM statute [i]s to provide an injured insured the same recovery [that] would have been available had the tortfeasor been insured to the same extent as the injured party.” Tibbetts, 2010 ME 61, ¶ 12, 999 A.2d 930 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, it was proper to offset the amount of available coverage with the other motorist’s payment, with the coverage then applied against the total damages determined by the arbitration panel. [¶18] Mathematically, however, the offset applies only once. After the issue of medical payments coverage, addressed below, has been resolved, the court will determine the remaining damages and compare that to the total UM/UIM coverage available to determine how to offset the other motorist’s payment. Because Graf has received $50,000 of the $300,000 she was entitled to pursuant to Policy 2’s UM/UIM coverage, she will only be able to recover a maximum of $250,000 in UM/UIM coverage.