Follow
EmailIn the case of Hall v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 105 Nev. 19, 768 P.2d 844 (1989) the Nevada Supreme Court considered the question of whether a claimant could recover both uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) benefits from the same policy. Ruby Hall was walking along minding her own business when two negligent drivers collided. The cars struck Ruby causing her injury. One of the drivers was uninsured and the other was underinsured.
Ruby’s father had foresight to buy an insurance policy that included bodily injury UM coverage of $15,000.00 per person/$30,000.00 per occurrence. The plaintiff’s attorneys hoped to recover $15,000.00 for the injury caused by the uninsured driver and an additional $15,000.00 for the injuries caused by the underinsured driver.
In making its analysis the Nevada Supreme Court examined the law that requires UM coverage to be offered and the law that describes UM coverage. NRS 690 B.020 and NRS 687 B.145(2). The court found that the two statutes did not create a requirement that insurers provide two separate coverages, one for uninsured and the other for underinsured motorists. Instead, the court explained that the laws anticipated that UIM coverage would be a component of the UM coverage. In other words, UIM coverage does not exist separate from the UM policy. The Nevada Supreme Court determined that because Ruby’s father had purchased only one policy and paid only one premium, it was not unfair that Ruby would only be able to benefit from one UM recovery.
