BROADCASTS.com

b'

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished 

GEICO Advantage Insurance Company and GEICO Choice Insurance Company  (collectively "GEICO") appealed a decision of the Circuit Court of the  City of Richmond granting summary judgment to Liosha Miles ("Miles") on  the issue of whether each of the two insurance policies at issue  provided separate tranches of insurance for uninsured motorist ("UM")  coverage and underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage. GEICO contended  that the statute and each of the applicable policies provide only a  single tranche of coverage applicable to both UM and UIM claims.  

In GEICO Advantage Insurance Company And GEICO Choice Insurance Company  v. Liosha Miles, No. 220004, Supreme Court of Virginia (December 1,  2022) the Supreme Court interpreted the statute and the policies  wording.  BACKGROUND  On April 18, 2019, Miles sustained extensive personal injuries in a  single automobile accident caused by the negligence of two different  drivers. One driver, Carlos Figuero, was insured under an automobile  insurance policy issued by Integon General Insurance Company ("Integon")  with a liability limit of $25,000. The second driver ("Doe") did not  stop at the scene of the accident and was never identified, and thus, is  considered an uninsured motorist pursuant to Code \\xa7 38.2-2206(B).  At the time of the accident, Miles was insured under two policies: she  was the named insured under a GEICO Advantage policy covering her  vehicle and also was a covered insured under her brother\'s GEICO Choice  policy by virtue of her being a "resident relative" of the named  insured.  A cap on UM coverage with no corresponding cap on UIM coverage-would  represent an anomaly bordering on an absurdity. Although the conclusion  was compelled by the words of the statute, the Supreme Court noted that  it also was consistent with its prior cases addressing the UM/UIM  statute. 

 The circuit court\'s interpretation of the statute not only fails to  address the evil sought to be corrected by the legislature it leads to  the very anomaly that the 1982 statutory amendment was designed to  eliminate. Under the circuit court\'s interpretation, Miles would be in a  better position from an insurance coverage perspective because she was  hit by one underinsured motorist and one uninsured motorist as opposed  to two underinsured motorists.  Both the text of the Code \\xa7 38.2-2206(A) and prior cases interpreting  the statute lead inexorably to the conclusion that UIM coverage is a  constituent part of UM coverage. Concluding that the circuit court erred  in granting Miles\' motion for summary judgment and denying GEICO\'s  cross-motion for summary judgment the Supreme Court reversed the  judgment of the circuit court and final judgment was entered in favor of  GEICO.