In Thompson v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., 438 P.3d 53 (Wash. App. 2019) the court held that UIM coverage did not extend to a third party guest passenger in a covered auto under Progressive’s policy. The Progressive policy contained an exclusion of the named insured’s own covered vehicle from the policy’s UIM coverage provision in situations where a guest passenger was seeking benefits for both liability and UIM coverage. Under the Progressive UIM portion of the policy, the policy defined an insured person as including any person occupying, but not operating, a covered auto. The policy also stated that a UIM vehicle did not include a covered auto under the policy unless the person insured was a named insured or relative of a named insured. In effect, the exclusion precluded guest passengers in a covered vehicle from recovering under both the liability and UIM provisions of the policy. The Washington Court of Appeals held that the non-duplication policy definition did not violate Washington law or public policy. The Court upheld the Washington Supreme Court’s decision that had themselves upheld the validity of UIM exclusions of third party guest passengers.
A Respected Expert Witness And Authority On Insurance Law In The U.S.
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS by Jordan R. Plitt
- THE SPLIT LANDSCAPE REGARDING DEPRECIATION OF LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE by Jordan R. Plitt
- CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REFUSES TO EXPAND THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN “CUMIS” COUNSEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2860 by Jordan R. Plitt
- DOES A WATER-BACKUP EXCLUSION INCLUDE SEWAGE? by Jordan R. Plitt