(USA Herald) — In a landmark decision that could reshape insurance policies for employees across the board, a North Carolina federal court recently ruled in favor of a former Verizon employee, Sean Enck, stating that he is entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., a unit of AIG.
The Legal Intricacies
U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell weighed in on the contested issue between Enck and National Union. Both parties had filed competing motions for summary judgment, but the court’s verdict wasn’t an all-or-nothing outcome. Judge Bell granted in part and denied in part the motions, creating a nuanced resolution that impacts not just the litigants but potentially thousands of others.
Central to the judge’s decision was North Carolina’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act of 1953 (FRA). Under this Act, auto insurers must provide coverage for uninsured and underinsured motorists. However, there was an amendment in 2008 stating policies solely for fleet vehicles are not mandated to provide UIM coverage. National Union had relied on this to deny coverage, but the judge ruled that their reliance was misplaced.
The Incident in Question
Back in April 2017, while on his way to service a Verizon customer, Enck got into a life-altering collision with Morgan Meyers, who was subsequently found to be under the influence of alcohol. Enck had to battle through layers of litigation, suing not just Meyers but also the owner of the car Meyers was driving and the bar where Meyers had been drinking prior to the crash.
After achieving settlements for those claims, Enck then went after UIM coverage from National Union in March 2020. The insurer denied his claim, triggering another legal battle that culminated in this latest court ruling.
What Does This Mean for You?
This case is monumental for several reasons. If you’re a policyholder or a part of the public at large, you might want to pay attention. This ruling sets a precedent that could affect how insurance companies interpret UIM clauses in states with similar financial responsibility acts. It offers an added layer of protection for employees, who may otherwise find themselves underinsured in cases of accidents involving impaired or uninsured drivers.
The Court’s Final Word
While Judge Bell did rule in favor of Enck, it’s important to note that the judge also found National Union did not act in bad faith or engage in unfair trade practices when denying coverage. Essentially, the judge opined that the company made an error in judgment, but not an unethical one.
In any case, this is a critical story for anyone involved in the convoluted world of insurance policies, and it’s something we’ll continue to cover closely. This lawsuit could very well be the catalyst for future reforms in how insurance companies handle UIM coverage, and it’s an issue that undoubtedly needs more attention.
The legal proceedings are officially titled as Enck vs. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, under the case no. 5:22-CV-00073, and are being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
Stay tuned to USA Herald for more breaking stories that impact you.
By Samuel Lopez | Legal News Contributor for USA Herald
