The Supreme Court of South Carolina has issued its decision in Progressive Casualty Ins. v. Leachman, which questioned Progressive's use of UIM selection forms. The court found that such forms constituted meaningful offers and that, in making such an offer, it is sufficient for an insurer to offer an insured all of the coverage amounts an insurer is authorized to sell.

Leachman was seriously injured when he was hit by an automobile while taking a walk. In addition to UIM coverage, for which Progressive paid $100,000, he also sought additional coverage up to the amount of his liability coverage.

Leachman had purchased a $300,000 combined single limit liability automobile insurance policy from Progressive. The form explained that increased coverage was available, and instructed insureds to select the amount of coverage they desired. Insureds also were instructed to acknowledge that they had selected or rejected UIM coverage. Leachman selected UIM coverage, and signed the form at the bottom, noting that the UIM coverage was lower than his liability coverage.

Progressive filed a declaratory judgment motion in federal district court, and the court certified the following questions to the supreme court: (1) In attempting to make an insured a “meaningful offer” of UIM coverage, is it sufficient for an insurer to offer all of the options of UIM coverage that the insurer is authorized to sell, up to the limits of the insured's liability policy, or must an insurer provide a blank line, or some equivalent, that allows the insured to select any increment of UIM coverage up to the insured's liability limits? (2) Does the form used in this case constitute a meaningful offer?

The court held that, as Progressive's form allowed Leachman to choose from 11 different amounts of UIM coverage up to the amount of liability coverage, it gave the him the opportunity to make an intelligent and informed decision on whether to purchase UIM coverage and, thus, Progressive had made a meaningful offer.

“By rendering this decision, insurers doing business in South Carolina have a clear template for what constitutes a meaningful offer of UIM coverage, and can tailor their practices accordingly” said Robert J. Hurns, legislative database manager and counsel for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, which filed an amicus curiae in the case.

Special Reports /

High Court Upholds UIM Selection Form

Related Stories

Recommended For You