Skilled and experienced in catastrophic cases and cases of a highly sensitive nature.
media
Underinsured-motorist [UIM] arbitration
You have a good case until you discover the defendant has insufficient insurance to compensate your client(s). Now what? You need to look for underinsured-motorist coverage. (Unless otherwise stated, all code citations are to Insurance Code section 11580.2.)
The basic law of underinsurance motorist insurance coverage
Underinsured-motorist (UIM) claims are creatures of contract and statute. They arise when a tort feaser has less automobile insurance coverage than a claimant’s UIM insurance coverage. Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (p), sets forth the requirements for a UIM claim. It defines an underinsured motor vehicle as one “insured for an amount that is less than the uninsured motorist limits carried on the motor vehicle of the injured person.” (Subd. (p)(2).) For a UIM claim, the claimant’s coverage must be greater than the tortfeasor’s insurance coverage. (Grunfeld v. Pacific Auto. Ins. Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 4.)
New Developments in Torts: CA Supreme Court Expands Emotional Distress Claims for Family Members
Extension of claims for emotional distress for relatives of victims:
On July 22, 2024 the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Downey v. City of Riverside [16 Cal. 5th 539] which expanded claims for emotional distress by relatives of victims in tort cases. In Downey, the Court held “awareness of an injury causing event” was sufficient to state a claim for NIED by a relative even when they did not percipiently and contemporaneously witness the accident or tortious event themselves. This case represents a significant expansion of claims for a relative contemporaneously aware of an injury to a family member even if they are not on the scene to witness it. Until Downey, “California courts ... recognized the plaintiff’s right to recover in negligence for serious emotional distress suffered as a result of witnessing injuries inflicted on a close relative... Only if the plaintiff “is present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim.” [Emphasis Added] Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal. 2nd 728; Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal. 3rd 644, 668. Downey answers the question: “What if the plaintiff is aware that injury has been inflicted on the victim, but not of the defendant’s role in causing the injury?”
