In Merisier v. GEICO Indemnity Company, the plaintiff alleged that she was injured while she was a passenger on a city bus that was struck by a motor vehicle negligently operated by the tortfeasor. The tortfeasor had a liability insurance policy with limits of $20,000 / $40,000 per person / accident. The plaintiff received $8,000 in settlement proceeds from the tortfeasor out of the $20,000 available liability limits. The plaintiff had an underinsured motorist policy with GEICO with the same limits as the liability insurance policy, and argued that she was entitled to benefits in the amount of $12,000. Citing to Connecticut's statutory scheme for underinsured motorist benefits, the Court noted that the purpose of underinsured motorist coverage is to provide an insured who is injured in an accident with the same resources he would have had the tortfeasor had liability insurance equal to the amount of underinsured motorist coverage, and not to guarantee full compensation for a claimant's injuries. The Court further noted that to determine whether a tortfeasor's vehicle is underinsured, one compares the total liability limits of the tortfeasor's policy (and not the amount actually received by the claimant) against the claimant's underinsured motorist coverage. In granting summary judgment in GEICO's favor, the Court found that the plaintiff's settlement for less than the $20,000 that was available to her under the tortfeasor's policy was irrelevant to making the initial determination as to whether the plaintiff's vehicle was underinsured within the meaning of the statutory scheme. Here, the plaintiff was not underinsured pursuant to the statutory scheme because the tortfeasor's liability limits and GEICO's underinsured motorist limits were the same.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
