Post 5092<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nCoverage Greater than Minimum is not an Underinsured Motorist<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nSee the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6ucok7-challenge-to-supreme-court-decision-requires-plaintiff-to-pay-attorneys-fee.html<\/a> \u00a0 and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/8iBukGzv6_w<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/NOT-UIM.png?resize=589%2C332\")
<\/p>\n
Angie Foresee appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint and awarding attorney fees in favor of Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). In\u00a0Angie Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property And Casualty Insurance Company<\/em>, and DOES I-V, No. 51902, Court of Appeals of Idaho (June 2, 2025) the trial court award was affirmed.<\/p>\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nForesee was involved in a rear-end collision with a third-party driver (at-fault driver). At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver carried a liability automobile insurance policy that had a $100,000 coverage limit per person. Foresee had underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) that included a $50,000 coverage limit per person through Metropolitan. Foresee alleged damages in excess of $100,000.<\/p>\n
Foresee settled with the at-fault driver\u2019s insurer. She then made a claim against Metropolitan for the limits of her UIM policy. Metropolitan denied coverage and Foresee commenced the present suit.\u00a0The district court held Metropolitan\u2019s offset provision is valid and fully enforceable. The district court awarded attorney fees to Metropolitan.<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nForesee argued that she is entitled to $25,000 UIM coverage benefits regardless of the offset limit provisions in the contract. Metropolitan argued that the only statutory mandate imposed on the insurer is to offer UIM coverage.<\/p>\n
The most straightforward resolution was rooted in the definition of the UIM coverage. Applying the plain meaning of the words, the at-fault driver did not fit the definition of an underinsured motorist. The at-fault driver\u2019s liability limit of $100,000 was greater than, not less than, the $50,000 limit of Foresee\u2019s UIM coverage. Accordingly, the at-fault driver\u2019s vehicle was not an underinsured motor vehicle, and Metropolitan need not provide coverage.<\/p>\n
Illusory Coverage<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nForesee argued that Metropolitan\u2019s UIM coverage of $50,000 was illusory because of the offset provision. When a policy only provides an illusion of coverage for its premiums, the policy limitations and exclusions will be considered void as violating public policy. Therefore, when the insured pays a premium for a benefit that would never be available, the coverage is illusory and is contrary to public policy yet the coverage was not illusory.<\/p>\n
Requirement to Provide UIM Coverage<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nTo provide is not synonymous with to pay out. When an insurance company provides coverage, it offers coverage under certain conditions \u2013 not a guarantee of an automatic payment. Thus, an insurer may provide coverage under the terms of the policy but may not pay out if the claim does not meet the policy\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n
Public Policy<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nForesee arguesdthat reduction of UIM coverage below $25,000 is void as against public policy.<\/p>\n
Foresee\u2019s argument rests on the premise that Idaho public policy allows only excess UIM coverage that would have provided the UIM benefits in addition to the at-fault driver\u2019s liability policy. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has specifically articulated that both excess and offset policies are legitimate in Idaho.<\/p>\n
District Court\u2019s Award of Attorney Fees<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nThe district court recognized that Foresee did not file a challenge to Metropolitan\u2019s requested grounds for attorney fees or the reasonableness of the attorney fees. There was no dispute that Metropolitan was the prevailing party.<\/p>\n
The trial court\u2019s judgment was affirmed and the Court of Appeals awarded costs on appeal to Metropolitan as the prevailing party.<\/p>\n
When a state supreme court establishes a rule of law for its state trial and appeals courts must follow the decision of the Supreme Court and a challenge to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling can be found, as the Idaho Court of Appeals did, is frivolous so Foresee not only lost her case but was required to pay the insurer\u2019s attorneys fees at trial and appeal.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/BZTHEA.png?resize=300%2C282\")
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma;\u00a0 Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 <\/a>https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
See the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6ucok7-challenge-to-supreme-court-decision-requires-plaintiff-to-pay-attorneys-fee.html<\/a> \u00a0 and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/8iBukGzv6_w<\/a><\/p>\n Angie Foresee appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint and awarding attorney fees in favor of Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). In\u00a0Angie Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property And Casualty Insurance Company<\/em>, and DOES I-V, No. 51902, Court of Appeals of Idaho (June 2, 2025) the trial court award was affirmed.<\/p>\n Foresee was involved in a rear-end collision with a third-party driver (at-fault driver). At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver carried a liability automobile insurance policy that had a $100,000 coverage limit per person. Foresee had underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) that included a $50,000 coverage limit per person through Metropolitan. Foresee alleged damages in excess of $100,000.<\/p>\n Foresee settled with the at-fault driver\u2019s insurer. She then made a claim against Metropolitan for the limits of her UIM policy. Metropolitan denied coverage and Foresee commenced the present suit.\u00a0The district court held Metropolitan\u2019s offset provision is valid and fully enforceable. The district court awarded attorney fees to Metropolitan.<\/p>\n Foresee argued that she is entitled to $25,000 UIM coverage benefits regardless of the offset limit provisions in the contract. Metropolitan argued that the only statutory mandate imposed on the insurer is to offer UIM coverage.<\/p>\n The most straightforward resolution was rooted in the definition of the UIM coverage. Applying the plain meaning of the words, the at-fault driver did not fit the definition of an underinsured motorist. The at-fault driver\u2019s liability limit of $100,000 was greater than, not less than, the $50,000 limit of Foresee\u2019s UIM coverage. Accordingly, the at-fault driver\u2019s vehicle was not an underinsured motor vehicle, and Metropolitan need not provide coverage.<\/p>\n Foresee argued that Metropolitan\u2019s UIM coverage of $50,000 was illusory because of the offset provision. When a policy only provides an illusion of coverage for its premiums, the policy limitations and exclusions will be considered void as violating public policy. Therefore, when the insured pays a premium for a benefit that would never be available, the coverage is illusory and is contrary to public policy yet the coverage was not illusory.<\/p>\n To provide is not synonymous with to pay out. When an insurance company provides coverage, it offers coverage under certain conditions \u2013 not a guarantee of an automatic payment. Thus, an insurer may provide coverage under the terms of the policy but may not pay out if the claim does not meet the policy\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n Foresee arguesdthat reduction of UIM coverage below $25,000 is void as against public policy.<\/p>\n Foresee\u2019s argument rests on the premise that Idaho public policy allows only excess UIM coverage that would have provided the UIM benefits in addition to the at-fault driver\u2019s liability policy. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has specifically articulated that both excess and offset policies are legitimate in Idaho.<\/p>\n The district court recognized that Foresee did not file a challenge to Metropolitan\u2019s requested grounds for attorney fees or the reasonableness of the attorney fees. There was no dispute that Metropolitan was the prevailing party.<\/p>\n The trial court\u2019s judgment was affirmed and the Court of Appeals awarded costs on appeal to Metropolitan as the prevailing party.<\/p>\n When a state supreme court establishes a rule of law for its state trial and appeals courts must follow the decision of the Supreme Court and a challenge to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling can be found, as the Idaho Court of Appeals did, is frivolous so Foresee not only lost her case but was required to pay the insurer\u2019s attorneys fees at trial and appeal.<\/p>\n Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\n Go to X @bzalma;\u00a0 Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 <\/a>https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
ANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
Illusory Coverage<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
Requirement to Provide UIM Coverage<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
Public Policy<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
District Court\u2019s Award of Attorney Fees<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n