Court Opinion

ID: 9704790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:46:52.081121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:05.560853
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RARICK, specially concurring: I concur with the opinion of the majority, albeit reluctantly. The language of both the statute and the contract is clear and unambiguous and admits only one reasonable interpretation, but the result required thereby is in my view inequitable and completely contrary to what I believe the ordinary lay person understands underinsured motorist coverage to be. Indeed, I believe that many an insured will be in for an unpleasant surprise when they seek to recover under the underinsured motorist provision of their policy and find that the protection they thought they purchased is substantially different from that which they actually bought. While I understand the purpose for the change in the statute as explained in Price, I believe that in making this change the legislature has inadvertently created a situation that will result in a hardship for many insureds, particularly in multiple-claim cases such as the present, and ironically it is a hardship that they sought to avoid by purchasing underinsured motorist coverage. Correcting this anomaly, however, is the province of the legislature, not the courts.