Court Opinion

ID: 9862633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:36:23.473975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:35.826012
License: Public Domain

GAUT, J., Concurring.
We reluctantly concur with the opinion. We believe that the correct result in this case is to make the insurer of the injured party responsible for the difference between the policy limits of the under-insured vehicle and the injured party’s own policy, regardless of whether the insurer of the underinsured vehicle pays its full policy limits. The obvious purpose of Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (p)(3) is to prevent the injured party from receiving a windfall in the form of a payment from both the underinsured party’s carrier and a payment in full by his own insurance carrier.
Allowing the injured party’s carrier a credit for the underinsured party’s policy limit achieves this purpose. So long as the carrier receives that credit it is in the same position whether or not its insured is paid the full amount of the offending party’s policy. Further, an interpretation allowing the injured party to accept partial payment from the underinsured party’s insurance carrier serves a number of beneficial objectives. It encourages settlement, reduces litigation, saves court time, and reduces the costs to both parties. Perhaps most important, it prevents the injured party from incurring expenses in time and money in an effort to wring out the last dime from the underinsured party’s insurance company.
Unfortunately, we see no way around the statute as written. Subdivision (p)(3) of section 11580.2 of the Insurance Code is very specific. It provides that the underinsured coverage “does not apply to any bodily injury until the limits of bodily injury liability policies applicable to all insured motor vehicles causing the injury have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements . . . .” (Italics added.) We have tried to interpret that section to allow the injured party to request the difference between the amount of the underinsured vehicle’s policy and the face of the insured’s policy. Our inclination is, however, trumped by the section which explicitly requires exhaustion by payment of judgment or settlement coupled with proof of the payment being submitted to the insurer providing the underinsured motorist coverage.
We therefore bow to the inevitable and join in the majority opinion. At the same time, we encourage the Legislature to consider the wisdom of modifying the section to achieve the apparent purpose of the statute by allowing *809partial payment by the underinsured motorist’s carrier so long as full credit is given to the injured party’s carrier for the policy limits of the underinsured motorist.
Ward, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 17, 1999, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 16, 2000.