Opinion ID: 1091903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the plaintiff should have received $10,000 instead of $14,860.34 in UM compensation from both policies?

Text: Dixie claims that the compensation scheme had the effect of allowing Cannon more UM coverage than the combined Dixie and State Farm policies offered. Dixie asserts that Cannon was paid an amount equivalent to $39,806.34 in UM coverage when only $35,000.00 was provided. However, State Farm was ordered to pay UM coverage of $25,000, [less an offset entitlement, from liability payment of $20,193.66, or a balance of $4,806.34.] Dixie was ordered to pay UM coverage of $10,000. Thus, Dixie contends that Cannon received an excess payment of UM coverage as follows: $25,000.00 (State Farm Liability Coverage) 4,806.34 (State Farm UM Coverage) 10,000.00 (Dixie UM Coverage) ----------- $39,806.34 TOTAL Dixie's claim that Cannon has been paid an amount equivalent to $39,806.34 in [UM] coverage is devoid of factual support. Cannon received $14,806.34 in UM coverage out of an available $35,000. The tortfeasor's bodily injury liability coverage provided only $20,193.66 of Cannon's total compensation, not $25,000. Thus, Cannon's actual receipt totaled $35,000  not $39,806.34.