BROADCASTS.com

b'

UIM Statute Limited Coverage to Same as UM Coverage\\nTHE STATUTE CONTROLS\\nMajdoleen A. Khattab, Administratrix of the Estate of Affan Mohamad \\nKhattab, ("Appellant" or "the Estate"), appealed the district court\'s \\norder granting summary judgment for Berkley Regional Insurance Company \\nand Integon General Insurance (collectively, "the insurers"), and \\nentering an order of declaratory judgment in favor of the insurers.\\n\\nIn Majdoleen A. Khattab, Administrator, Estate of Affan Mohamad Khattab \\nv. Berkley Regional Insurance Company; Integon General Insurance \\nCorporation, No. 22-1462, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit\\n (October 19, 2023) the Fourth Circuit interpreted the clear language of\\n the statute and UM/UIM coverages.\\n\\nISSUES\\n\\nAt issue is an insurance policy issued by Berkley Regional Insurance \\nCompany. The policy has a general liability limit of $1,000,000 and an \\nuninsured motorist coverage limit of $70,000. This case solely turns on \\nthe legal question of what the relevant coverage limit under the \\ninsurance policy is for an accident caused by a motorist whose insurance\\n coverage is less than the amount of claimed damages and less than the \\namount of the general liability limit, but greater than the amount of \\nthe uninsured motorist coverage limit.\\n\\nVirginia mandates that an insurance policy\'s uninsured motorist coverage\\n limits must match the policy\'s liability limits unless any one named \\ninsured rejects the additional uninsured motorist coverage by notifying \\nthe insurer as provided in the statute. There is no dispute that Berkley\\n complied with the notice requirement for "uninsured/underinsured \\ncoverage limits" pursuant to the statute. There was no dispute that the \\ninsured properly limited the uninsured coverage to $70,000.\\n\\nWith respect to underinsured coverage the statute provides that the \\npolicy shall also provide underinsured motorist insurance coverage with \\nlimits that shall be equal to the uninsured motorist insurance coverage \\nlimits and shall obligate the insurer to make payment for bodily injury \\nor property damage caused by the operation or use of an underinsured \\nmotor vehicle to the extent the vehicle is underinsured.\\n\\nAppellant argues, the underinsured coverage limit remained at \\n$1,000,000, equal to the policy\'s general liability limit. However, \\nAppellant did not pay for a UIM coverage of $1 million.\\n\\nAppellant overlooks that the statutory default sets underinsured \\nmotorist coverage equal to uninsured motorist coverage, not the policy\'s\\n general liability limit.