Here is a post from Insurance Coverage Law Blog that tells us something we don't already know, but noone is going to do anything about it - folks don't read or understand their insurance policies! However, the law does not stop assuming they read them, understand them, and are bound by them since all are presumed to know the law in spite of the fact that it takes four years of college, three years of law school, and a bar examination before we can practice law!
If you have any doubts, then take a look at Nationwide v. Abney 2004-SC-000937-DG.pdf when the claimant should have known the release he signed released the whole wide world of tortfeasors and not just the one for whom Nationwide was writing the check for the simple reason that is what he signed - "all other persons".
It makes no difference that many plaintiffs' lawyer's jaws may have collectively dropped on reading this, and every insurance adjuster in the state "licked their lips" and started scrutinizing and asking for those liability releases to try and extend it to joint tortfeasors, indemnitees, and UIM/UM carriers.
And it makes no never-mind, that the Abney decision was a TORT decision which focused on KRS 411.182 and the abolition of joint and several liability applicability to release of tortfeasors which questions its applicability to the CONTRACTUAL claim represented by underinsured motorist benefits.
See, eg.:
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 177 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Ky. 2005).
[W]e are of the opinion that the legislature was quite clear in its intent to exclude contract actions, including those for UM and UIM coverage, from the scope of KRS 411.182. And while we certainly agree that UM and UIM actions involve aspects of tort law, in that the allocation of fault is a necessary prerequisite to coverage, our case law firmly establishes that the contractual nature of the claims is procedurally controlling.
And;
True v. Raines, 99 S.W.3d 439 (Ky.,2003)
Nor do we write without recognizing that the claimant may execute a release recognizing he intends to release not only the tortfeasor, but his own UIM carrier, specifying he has been “fully compensated for all damages and the release constitutes payment in satisfaction of all claims.” Richardson v. Eastland, Inc., Ky., 660 S.W.2d 7, 9 (1983).
Here is the post:
Survey finds homeowners have badly mistaken beliefs about coverage
This doesn't surprise me much [eg., insurance coverage blogger who wrote the post]. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners did a survey of homeowner beliefs about what their policies cover, and found huge percentages have mistaken ideas. Here's one example from the NAIC report:
The survey found that 33 percent of U.S. heads of household, who own a home and have homeowners insurance, incorrectly believe flood damages would be covered by a standard homeowners or property and liability policy, despite extensive media coverage on Hurricane Katrina victims whose claims were denied because they lacked flood insurance.
Here are some other findings:
68 percent think vehicles such as cars, boats and motorcycles stolen from or damaged on their property are covered.
51 percent think damages from a break in the water line on their property supplying water to their home are covered.
37 percent think damages due to a break in the sewer line on their property that connects to their municipal sewer system are covered.
35 percent think damages from earthquakes are covered.
34 percent think damages from mold are covered.
31 percent think damages from termites or other infestation are covered.
22 percent think pets stolen from or injured on their property are covered.
Actually, I'm [insurance coverage blogger] surprised these percentages aren't higher.
Click here, read the rest of his post, and be amazed how the reality of the insureds falls short of the expectations of our judicial decisions and presumptions.
