Legal Opinion · Dissent

Easterling v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided September 15, 2017No. 1150833Published

1Dissent

SELLERS, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Section 32-7-23(a), Ala. Code 1975, mandates uninsured-motorist ("UM") insurance coverage for the protection of persons who are "legally entitled to recover damages" from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles; underinsured-motorist ("UIM") coverage, which is at issue here, is a subset of UM coverage. An insured is "legally entitled to recover" under his or her policy providing UM coverage only those damages the insured could legally recover in a direct action against the tortfeasor who harmed him or her. To be legally entitled to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Continental Nat. Indem. Co. v. FieldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  2. Ex Parte CarltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  3. Kendall v. United Services Automobile Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 2009
  4. Singleton v. BurchfieldDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API