Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company
572 P.3d 754
Idaho Ct. App.2025Background
- Angie Foresee was involved in a car accident, where the at-fault driver had $100,000 liability insurance; Foresee had $50,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage through Metropolitan.
- After settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer, Foresee sought to recover her full UIM policy limits from Metropolitan, claiming her damages exceeded $100,000.
- Metropolitan denied coverage, invoking an offset provision in the policy.
- Both parties filed for summary judgment, focusing on whether the offset could reduce the UIM benefit below $25,000.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Metropolitan, dismissed Foresee’s complaint, and awarded Metropolitan attorney fees, finding the offset clause valid and not against public policy.
- Foresee appealed, arguing the offset is illusory, contrary to Idaho law, and against public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of UIM Offset Below $25,000 | Offset below $25,000 makes UIM coverage illusory and violates public policy. | Offset provision is enforceable; policy not illusory as coverage exceeds minimum required. | Offset provision valid; policy not illusory. |
| Statutory Requirement to Provide UIM Coverage | Statute requires insurer to provide—not just offer—minimum UIM coverage unless rejected. | Only obligation is to offer UIM coverage; not mandatory to pay out unless policy’s terms are met. | Insurer must offer, not guarantee payment of, UIM coverage. |
| Policy Violates Public Policy | Offset provision violates public policy under Idaho law. | Offset provisions are contemplated by statute and do not violate public policy as long as not entirely eliminating coverage. | Offset provision does not violate public policy. |
| Absurd Results from Offset | Offset leads to unfair outcome, giving less benefit for higher coverage. | Both offset and excess UIM coverage structures are legitimate and permitted under Idaho law. | No absurd results; offset structure allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pena v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wis., 503 P.3d 201 (Idaho 2022) (UIM coverage is illusory only if offset or exclusions make the benefit unavailable; here, UIM coverage exceeds statutory minimum and is not illusory)
- Lanningham v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho, 551 P.3d 1251 (Idaho 2024) (Insurer’s obligation is to offer UIM, not mandatorily provide it)
- Wood v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 454 P.3d 1126 (Idaho 2019) (Both offset and excess UIM coverage structures are valid and do not violate public policy)