Opinion ID: 1886272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Statute Unambiguous

Text: White next argues that section 3902(b)(2) is ambiguously drafted and requires outside sources to explain its true meaning. While the dissent in Peebles referred to section 3902(b)(2) as arguably ambiguous, [24] just three months later in Williams, this Court, sitting en banc, characterized the definition of underinsurance in section 3902(b)(2) as unambiguous. [25] We reaffirm our holding in Williams that section 3902(b)(2) is clear on its face. Accordingly, a claimant may access her UIM benefits only if the limits of bodily injury liability coverage under all bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident total less than the limits provided by the uninsured motorist coverage. [26] In this case, the policy limits are identical and the plaintiff cannot access her UIM benefits.