Court Opinion

ID: 9853530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:57.080992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:50.759806
License: Public Domain

WEBB, Judge.
This appeal brings to the Court a question as to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in a motor vehicle liability policy. G.S. 20-279.21 which provides for the issuance of motor vehicle liability policies requires that liability policies issued in this state have uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage unless the policyholder rejects them. If underinsured coverage is accepted by the policyholder G.S. 20-279.21(b)(4) provides in part:
The insurer shall not be obligated to make any payment because of bodily injury to which underinsured motorist insurance coverage applies and that arises out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an underinsured highway vehicle until after the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements, and provided the limit of payment is only the difference between the limits of the liability insurance that is applicable and the limits of the underinsured motorist coverage as specified in the owner’s policy.
The insurance policy in this case has underinsured motorists coverage. Among other things the policy provides as to underin-sured motorist coverage:
Any amounts payable under this coverage shall be reduced by all sums:
1. Paid because of bodily injury or property damage by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be legally responsible.
The unambiguous terms of the plaintiffs underinsured motorist coverage provide that any amount payable by the defendant will be reduced by all sums paid because of bodily injury by those *142legally responsible. The $25,000.00 limit on the plaintiffs underin-sured motorist coverage is therefore reduced by the $25,000.00 the plaintiff received in settlement from Perry, leaving nothing due to plaintiff from defendant.
If the terms of the policy were ambiguous, we would reach the same result under G.S. 20-279.21(b)(4) which under our law is a part of this policy. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 59 N.C. App. 621, 298 S.E. 2d 56 (1982), cert. denied, 307 N.C. 698, 301 S.E. 2d 101 (1983). This section of the statute provides that the limit of payment for underinsured motorist coverage is “only the difference between the liability insurance that is applicable [the $25,000.00 limit on the tortfeasor’s liability coverage] and the limits of the underinsured motorist coverage as specified in the owner’s policy [the $25,000.00 limit on the underinsured motorist coverage in the plaintiffs policy with the defendant].” In this case the difference between these limits is zero.
When the plaintiff purchased the underinsured motorist coverage an endorsement was added to the policy which defined an “uninsured motor vehicle” as follows:
To which, with respect to bodily injury only, the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident is:
a. equal to or greater than the minimum limit specified by the financial responsibility law of North Carolina; and
b. less than the limit of liability for this coverage.
The appellant argues that the first requirement of this endorsement is met because the tortfeasor had the minimum limit specified by our law. He argues that the phrase “less than the limit of liability for this coverage” found in requirement “b” refers to the plaintiffs liability coverage for claims against him. He has liability coverage of $100,000.00 for each person and he contends his underinsured motorist coverage should be the difference between $25,000.00 and $100,000.00. If we should interpret the words “liability for this coverage” to mean the plaintiffs own liability coverage we are still faced with the plain words of the policy and the statute which limit the plaintiffs coverage to the difference *143between his underinsured coverage and what he collects from the tortfeasor. We believe the proper interpretation of words “liability for this coverage” is that they refer to the underinsured coverage the plaintiff received from the endorsement.
The plaintiff argues that under the terms of the policy without the endorsement for underinsured motorist coverage he could collect on his uninsured motorist coverage for any loss from any tortfeasor who has no coverage or less coverage than the minimum required. He contends that there are no circumstances under which he can collect on his underinsured coverage and he has paid his premium for this coverage in exchange for nothing. It appears that the plaintiff is correct in this argument but it does not justify our rewriting the policy.
Affirmed.
Judge BECTON concurs in the result.
Judge COZORT dissents.