Legal Opinion

Malone v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 3, 1989No. G007306PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSBY, J.

We hold here that underinsured motorist coverage is not the equivalent of full excess coverage. As the statutory scheme is designed, the underinsured motorist carrier gets a dollar-for-dollar credit for all payments by third party tortfeasors to the insureds, whether the insureds are made whole or not. In other words, a carrier providing underinsured motorist benefits never pays the full amount, only the difference between the policy limits and all contributions by all tortfeasors to all insureds.

I

Jo Ann Malone’s husband was struck by a car and killed as he changed a tire on…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wagner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rudd v. California Casualty General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  2. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. MacRiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Ramirez v. USAA Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. MessingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Fagundes v. American International Adjustment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API