UIM exclusion inapplicable due to conflict with UIM statute and policy provisions.

The plaintiff was injured while working in the course of his employment. While operating a vehicle owned and insured by his employer, he was struck by another vehicle. The plaintiff recovered the UIM limits from his employer's auto policy minus the liability limits he received from the at-fault driver's auto insurance policy. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a claim to his auto carrier representing the difference between his personal UIM limits and what he had already recovered. His claim was denied based on his policy's UIM exclusion, which states that there is no coverage for property damage or bodily injury while occupying a vehicle insured under another policy on which you are an insured. The court found this exclusion to be ambiguous, as the exclusionary language conflicted with the UIM statute and when read in conjunction with other applicable policy provisions.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2012