Court Opinion

ID: 9796646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:01:25.720417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:53.335768
License: Public Domain

Gernon, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent.
In Kansas, underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage is mandated by K.S.A. 40-284(b), which provides:
“Any uninsured motorist coverage shall include an underinsured motorist provision which enables the insured or the insured’s legal representative to recover from the insurer the amount of damages for bodily injury or death to which the insured is legally entitled from the owner or operator of another motor vehicle with coverage limits equal to the limits of liability provided by such uninsured coverage to the extent such coverage exceeds the limits of the bodily injury coverage carried by the owner or operator of the other motor vehicle.”
This statute is plain and unambiguous. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cummings, 13 Kan. App. 2d 630, 638, 778 P.2d 370, rev. denied 245 Kan. 786 (1989).
*637As I read the plain language of K.S.A. 40-284(b), it means that an underinsured motorist should be able to recover UIM benefits only to the extent that the insured’s UIM coverage exceeds the tortfeasor’s liability limits.
I read the plain language to mean that the amount of UIM benefits available to an insured must be determined by a “limits-to-limits” comparison of the UIM and liability coverages. Therefore, if the UIM coverage is the greater of the two, the insured may collect UIM benefits up to the amount of the difference between the two coverages.
This court recognized such a rule in Cummings, 13 Kan. App. 2d at 638. We reaffirmed that position in Taylor v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 30 Kan. App. 2d, P.3d (April 12, 2002).
In Cummings, we stated that K.S.A. 40-284(b)
“is unambiguous and plainly indicates that the underinsured motorist coverage enables the insured to recover from his underinsured motorist carrier damages ‘to the extent such coverage exceeds the limits of the bodily injury coverage carried by the owner or operator of the other motor vehicle.’ In other words, if the underinsured motorist coverage in the policy covering appellants exceeds the limits of the liability coverage in effect on the driver of the other vehicle, resort may be had to underinsured motorist coverage. In this case, however, both limits were the same.
“ . . . Since underinsured motorist coverage is only available to the extent that it exceeds the limits of the bodily injury coverage carried by the driver of the other vehicle, under the facts of this case, underinsured motorist coverage is not available.
“In determining whether underinsured motorist coverage is available, two steps must be satisfied: (1) The opposing party’s liability coverage must be below the claimant’s liability coverage, and (2) the claimant must have damages in excess of tire opposing party’s liability coverage.” 13 Kan. App. 2d at 638-39.
Two other cases, Cashman v. Cherry, 270 Kan. 295, 13 P.3d 1265 (2000), and Jones v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, 26 Kan. App. 2d 206, 981 P.2d 767, rev. denied 268 Kan. 847 (1999), deal with similar coverage issues, but not precisely the issue here.
The issue in both Cashman and Jones was whether an under-insured motorist claim existed. Both dealt with family settlements. *638Neither Cashman nor Jones dealt with how the available under-insured motorist coverage should be calculated. I read nothing in either case which modifies the overarching and traditional limits-to-limits rule.
The limits-to-limits rule makes both economic and public policy sense. The insurance industry must be able to calculate risk and exposure. The application of some rule which is uncertain could potentially make it impossible to assess risk, could help promote collusion, and, in the long run, could affect the underwriting of underinsured motorist coverage.
For the reasons stated, I dissent.