Court Opinion

ID: 9848954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:31:00.04319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:55.344567
License: Public Domain

Justice Webb
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority correctly says that the determination as to whether the tortfeasor, Mary Elizabeth Faust, is an under-*204insured motorist depends on the interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4), which defines an “underinsured highway vehicle” as
a highway vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance, or use of which, the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident is less than the applicable limits of liability under the owner’s policy.
There is no question in this case that the “applicable limits of liability under the owner’s policy” in this case would be $100,000 if Michelle Harris had been liable for injuries and damages suffered in the accident. This is the amount of insurance coverage which the tortfeasor had and she was not an underinsured motorist under N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4).
The majority cites treatises dealing with the subject of uninsured motorist coverage and says that noticeably absent from any of them is a comparison of the tortfeasor’s liability coverage with the plaintiff’s liability insurance. Whatever the treatises may say, I believe the plain language of the statute requires a comparison of liability coverages to determine whether there is underinsured motorist coverage. The plain language requires us to hold that Mary Elizabeth Faust was not an underinsured motorist.
I vote to reverse the Court of Appeals.
Justice LAKE joins in this dissenting opinion.