Opinion ID: 2509465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Is the Appropriate Remedy?

Text: The court does not reach the question of how to remedy an inadequate offer under AS 21.89.020(c) because the court does not find the offers in these cases inadequate. Because I believe that the offer in Graham-Gonzalez was inadequate, I would adopt a two-part remedy granting Graham-Gonzalez the level of coverage that Martin would have purchased had she received a proper offer under AS 21.89.020(c). First, upon a finding that an insurer failed to offer UIM coverage under AS 21.89.020(c), the policy would automatically be imputed with UIM coverage limits equal to the liability limits purchased. Next, the court would engage in a fact-finding inquiry to determine whether the policyholder would have purchased optional additional coverage above the policy's limits had the additional coverage been offered. This remedy requires a two-fold reading of AS 21.89.020(c). Under AS 21.89.020(c)(1), insurance companies must offer UIM coverage with policy limits equal to the limits voluntarily purchased under the insured's liability coverage. Under AS 21.89.020(c)(2), insurance companies must offer additional optional UIM coverage with policy limits higher than what the insured party carries in liability insurance. This reading of the statute is consistent with our decision in Peter, where we stated that Alaska Statute 21.89.020(c) requires insurance companies to offer in automobile liability policies UM/UIM coverage with minimum limits of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. In addition, subsection (c)(2) requires that optional higher limits be offered up to $1,000,000/ $2,000,000. [12] Thus, the two-part remedy affords the policyholder the UIM baseline coverage that would likely have been purchased if offered under AS 21.89.020(c)(1), with a possibility of receiving the optional additional coverage that might have been purchased if it had been offered under AS 21.89.020(c)(2). Although I recognize Judge Sanders's concerns that such a remedy might invite self-serving testimony on the part of insured parties, we were fully aware in Peter that [w]hat [a policyholder] would have done if higher limits had been offered is a speculative subject. But it is a subject on which personal and self-interested testimony is both admissible and necessary to show a loss. [13] Moreover, some of the problems created by such an inquiry can be alleviated by placing part of the burden on the violating insurance company. If the policyholder testifies that he or she would have purchased a policy with a higher level of coverage than the liability coverage, I would shift the burden to the insurer to prove that the policyholder would not have purchased the higher amount. While the solution is not perfect, I believe that it is the best available remedy. [14] Because I believe that a meaningful offer under AS 21.89.020(c) must include some information about the price of UIM coverage, I respectfully dissent.