Challenge to Supreme Court Decision Requires Plaintiff to Pay Attorneys’ Fees

By Barry Zalma on June 6, 2025

To Recover UIM Benefits the At Fault Driver Must be Underinsured

Post 5092

Coverage Greater than Minimum is not an Underinsured Motorist

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6ucok7-challenge-to-supreme-court-decision-requires-plaintiff-to-pay-attorneys-fee.html and at https://youtu.be/8iBukGzv6_w

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 Angie Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property And Casualty Insurance Company, and DOES I-V, No. 51902, Court of Appeals of Idaho (June 2, 2025) the trial court award was affirmed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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.

Foresee settled with the at-fault driver’s insurer. She then made a claim against Metropolitan for the limits of her UIM policy. Metropolitan denied coverage and Foresee commenced the present suit. The district court held Metropolitan’s offset provision is valid and fully enforceable. The district court awarded attorney fees to Metropolitan.

ANALYSIS

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.

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’s liability limit of $100,000 was greater than, not less than, the $50,000 limit of Foresee’s UIM coverage. Accordingly, the at-fault driver’s vehicle was not an underinsured motor vehicle, and Metropolitan need not provide coverage.

Illusory Coverage

Foresee argued that Metropolitan’s 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.

Requirement to Provide UIM Coverage

To provide is not synonymous with to pay out. When an insurance company provides coverage, it offers coverage under certain conditions – 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’s requirements.

Public Policy

Foresee arguesdthat reduction of UIM coverage below $25,000 is void as against public policy.

Foresee’s 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’s liability policy. However, the Idaho Supreme Court has specifically articulated that both excess and offset policies are legitimate in Idaho.

District Court’s Award of Attorney Fees

The district court recognized that Foresee did not file a challenge to Metropolitan’s requested grounds for attorney fees or the reasonableness of the attorney fees. There was no dispute that Metropolitan was the prevailing party.

The trial court’s judgment was affirmed and the Court of Appeals awarded costs on appeal to Metropolitan as the prevailing party.

ZALMA OPINION

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’s 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’s attorneys fees at trial and appeal.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk