To those of you who wished me a Happy Birthday, - thank you. I am now 79 and will continue to work and write every day until I no longer can.

Failure to List Auto Defeats Claim on Commercial Auto Policy

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/statute-requiring-simplified-language-insurance-does-barry and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3800 posts. 

People try to save money on insurance by acquiring the smallest limits available. Then, when they incur a loss, they try to expand the coverages available with arguments to courts that the injured person needs the money, regardless of the policy wording.

In Marilou Marie Hatler v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, and John Does I-III, 4:20-cv-69-BMM, United States District Court For The District Of Montana Great Falls Division (June 24, 2021) Marilou Hatler (“Plaintiff”) sued to obtain a declaration that she is entitled to medical payments coverage (“MPC”) and underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) under her husband’s businessowners motor vehicle insurance policy (“Policy”) issued by Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (“Mountain West” or “Defendant”).

ZALMA OPINION

In the 54 years I have been involved with insurance only two insureds were willing to testify that they read and understood their policy: both lied. Whether a policy is simplified, whether it has an extensive table of contents, it will invariably not be read until there is a loss that a creative lawyer can read in an attempt to obtain coverage not intended by the insured or the insurer at the time it was acquired. The argument on the Simplification Act was creative but unavailing since to apply it as the plaintiff suggested the table of contents would be as big as the policy itself. Judges properly refuse to create coverage that does not exist. The court read the full policy and applied it as written.