Court Opinion

ID: 9853532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:57.085821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:50.761284
License: Public Domain

Judge COZORT
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s opinion affirming summary judgment for the defendant. I do not disagree with the majority’s interpretation of its quoted provisions of the policy and the statutes. However, to reach iis decision, the majority assumes that the limits of the underinsured motorist coverage in the policy are $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Those limitations are not specifically stated in that fashion in the policy. The limitation of liability for the underinsured motorist coverage is different from the limitation on the other kinds of coverage. For example, for bodily injury liability coverage, the stated limits are: “$100,000 Each Person, $300,000 Each Accident.” Similarly, the uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage is limited to “$25,000 *144Each Person, $50,000 Each Accident.” For underinsured motorist coverage, however, the phrases “EACH PERSON” and “EACH Accident” are not used. Instead, the limit of liability is stated merely as “$25,000-$50,000.”
I find the language setting forth the limitation on underin-sured motorist coverage to be ambiguous. It is a fundamental principle of legal analysis that “insurance policies should be given a reasonable construction in accordance with their terms and should be interpreted to provide coverage when rationally possible to do so, rather than to defeat it. Ambiguities in language are resolved in favor of the insured, and exceptions to liability are not favored.” Great American Insurance Co. v. C. G. Tate Construction Co., 46 N.C. App. 427, 433, 265 S.E. 2d 467, 471 (1980).
With those principles in mind, I would construe the policy as follows: For the first $25,000 in damages to the plaintiff, he would be covered by his uninsured motorist coverage, if the tortfeasor had no liability insurance or less than the statutory minimum of $25,000. For the next $25,000 in damages to the plaintiff (“$25,000-$50,000”), plaintiff would be covered by his underinsured motorist coverage, if the tortfeasor had no liability insurance beyond the $25,000 statutory minimum, or less than $50,000 liability coverage. In other words, the uninsured motorist coverage protects plaintiff up to $25,000 in damages, and the underinsured motorist coverage protects him when his damages are from “$25,000-$50,000.”
To hold otherwise means the plaintiff would never have any coverage for the itemized premiums paid for his underinsurance coverage, a result which was surely never intended by the General Assembly in its enactment of G.S. 20-279.21. I would reverse the trial court.