A recent Arizona Supreme Court ruling blocks insurance companies from lowering underinsured motorist payments to injured people who have received workers’ compensation.
Because the lawsuit was filed as a class action, the ruling against Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm insurance could affect other cases in the past 10 years where insurers cut payments for similar reasons. It also applies to any future claims in the state.
The ruling arose from a lawsuit filed by former Pima County sheriff’s Deputy Jean Cundiff, who sued State Farm after the carrier cut an award for her on-duty car crash by the amount she had gotten from workers’ comp.
Cundiff’s cruiser was hit by another car in 1997, and she eventually had to take a disability retirement. After settling with the other driver’s insurer for the maximum liability coverage of $15,000, Cundiff made a claim against her own State Farm policy’s underinsured motorist coverage, which had a $25,000 limit.
According to the ruling, an arbitrator determined her damages totaled $40,000, leaving State Farm on the hook for its $25,000 limit after deducting the other driver’s payment.
But State Farm decided it should only pay $10,000 because Cundiff also had received workers’ compensation payments.
The Supreme Court ruled that State Farm was wrong to cut Cundiff’s damages because workers’ comp isn’t liability insurance and the underinsured motorist law expressly forbids it, even if an insurance policy contains such a provision. The case was sent back to a lower court for further hearings and to determine who else may be eligible to receive money from State Farm.
The ruling doesn’t bar those provisions in uninsured motorist coverage, which is governed by another part of the law.
Cundiff’s attorney, John Tully of Tucson, said insurers are increasingly using such language to limit their payouts and said he expected others to now ask their insurers to pay money they withheld. Such limits don’t apply when someone is seeking compensation from the other driver’s insurance company.
“It strikes me as unfair when the industry starts carving out exceptions and limitations to the insured when they would not be available if the other driver had bought insurance,” Tully said.
State Farm spokeswoman Cheryl Willis-Blakes said the company hadn’t had a chance to review the case and couldn’t comment.
The ruling applies to all insurance companies who sell policies in Arizona.
The State Farm case was one of two recent rulings that found against insurers or agents. The other allowed a store’s owners to assign the right to sue their insurance agent for negligence to the father of a teen killed in an accident. That case involved a liquor store that was sued for selling alcohol to a minor. The minor later crashed, killing a passenger, and the passenger’s family sued the store.
The store settled for $3 million, but the family agreed to try to collect the money from insurance agent Victoria Gittlen because she allegedly did not recommend the correct liability coverage. The court sent the case back to a trial court for further proceedings.
The high court in the second case found against the insurance agent, who argued that a client couldn’t give the right to sue her to another party.
The cases were Cundiff vs. State Farm, CV-07-057-PR, and Webb vs. Gittlen, CV-07-0127-PR.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Florida Peninsula Says Reforms Have Had an Impact, Announces 2% Rate Cut 
Coral Gables, Florida Tops Beverly Hills as Ritziest Home Market in US 
Soaring Insurance Costs Hit as US Buyers Finally Get a Break on Car Prices 
Harvard Study Again Stirs the Pot on Demotech Ratings of Florida Carriers From This Issue
