Understanding the Uninsured Motorist Policy

In this recent case, the plaintiff argued that the insurance policy was ambiguous when it came to the meaning of “regular use” of a vehicle.  See if the injured party had “regular use” of a vehicle that was not listed on his personal insurance policy, ie, his police patrol car, then there was no Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist coverage under his personal insurance policy.

The plaintiff’s argument here is something along the lines of Bill Clinton question the meaning of the word “is”.  Generally when someone attacks an insurance policy, they claim the wording is ambiguous.  Sometimes it is.  This argument was successful at the trial court level, but not at the Court of Appeals level.

What do we learn from this case? In Tennessee, it is generally a safe bet that if there’s a common, plain way to read an insurance policy, that’s the way it is going to be read.  This is unfortuneate for the plaintiff, but fortuneate for the rest of Tennessee.  The reason is that if courts start rewriting insurance policies, then insurance rates will go up to make up the difference.

This entry was posted on March 19, 2009 at 7:03 am and is filed under Injury Law, Insurance Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.