Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Estate of Lawton

Supreme Court of Vermont

Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Estate of Lawton

2003 VT 7, 820 A.2d 196, 175 Vt. 475, 2003 Vt. LEXIS 7

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJanuary 31, 2003

DocketNo. 01-239

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2003 VT 7 (Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Estate of Lawton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Estate of Lawton, 2003 VT 7, 820 A.2d 196, 175 Vt. 475, 2003 Vt. LEXIS 7 (Vt. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

¶ 1. In light of this Court’s recent decision in Colwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2003 VT 5, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727, which controls the outcome of this dispute, we reverse the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Michael Lawton, and order that summary judgment be entered for plaintiff, Concord General Mutual Insurance Company. In Colwell, this Court determined that 23 V.S.A. § 941(f) entitles an injured insured to underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) only when the total limits of liability laid out in the tortfeasor’s policy are less than the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage stated in the insured’s policy, not when the injured insured’s awarded share is less than his UIM coverage. Id. Here, the tortfeasor’s liability coverage exceeded the UIM coverage provided to the injured insured by plaintiff. As such, he did not fall into the statutory definition of underinsured. Despite the fact that defendant actually recovered less than the limit of UIM coverage provided by plaintiff, he is not entitled to UIM benefits.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

¶ 1. In light of this Court’s recent decision in Colwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2003 VT 5, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727, which controls the outcome of this dispute, we reverse the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Michael Lawton, and order that summary judgment be entered for plaintiff, Concord General Mutual Insurance Company. In Colwell, this Court determined that 23 V.S.A. § 941(f) entitles an injured insured to underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) only when the total limits of liability laid out in the tortfeasor’s policy are less than the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage stated in the insured’s policy, not when the injured insured’s awarded share is less than his UIM coverage. Id. Here, the tortfeasor’s liability coverage exceeded the UIM coverage provided to the injured insured by plaintiff. As such, he did not fall into the statutory definition of underinsured. Despite the fact that defendant actually recovered less than the limit of UIM coverage provided by plaintiff, he is not entitled to UIM benefits.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2003 VT 7, 820 A.2d 196, 175 Vt. 475, 2003 Vt. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/concord-general-mutual-insurance-v-estate-of-lawton-vt-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack