Hiltner v. Owners Insurance Co.
2016 ND 45
| N.D. | 2016Background
- In 2010 Amy Hiltner fell from the trunk of a moving vehicle driven by Samantha Denault and suffered serious injuries; Denault’s insurer paid its liability limit.
- Hiltner sued her underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier, Owners Insurance, for benefits under North Dakota’s statutory UIM scheme; the case was removed to federal court, which certified a question to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- The trial court apportioned fault: Denault 55%, passenger 25%, Hiltner 20%; damages awarded included past economic damages of $101,874.69.
- Hiltner received $30,000 in no-fault (first-party) medical benefits; parties disputed whether that $30,000 should be deducted before or after reducing damages by comparative fault.
- Certified question: Should no-fault benefits be deducted from past economic damages before reducing for the plaintiff’s (and non-tortfeasor parties’) percentage of fault? The majority answered: No.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Order of applying no-fault offset vs. comparative fault for UIM past economic damages | Hiltner: deduct no-fault benefits from past economic damages first, then apply comparative-fault reductions | Owners: apply comparative-fault reduction to past economic damages first, then deduct no-fault benefits | Court: First reduce damages by plaintiff’s and non-tortfeasor parties’ fault percentages, then deduct no-fault benefits (answer: No to deducting before fault allocation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 806 N.W.2d 146 (N.D. 2011) (describing UIM as first-party coverage)
- Jund v. Johnnie B’s Bar & Grill, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 776 (N.D. 2011) (construed UIM offset language and legislative history regarding making insureds whole and avoiding duplication)
- DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 603 N.W.2d 906 (N.D. 2000) (explained difference-in-limits vs. excess UIM coverage and offset purpose)
- Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 722 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2006) (discussed statutory UIM scheme and prior case law)
- Haff v. Hettich, 593 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 1999) (applied comparative fault allocation to UIM non-economic damages)
- Hartman v. Estate of Miller, 656 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2003) (trial court’s refusal to offset under §26.1-40-15.4(1)(b) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Moser v. Wilhelm, 300 N.W.2d 840 (N.D. 1980) (pre-1989 discussion of secured-person exemption and admissibility of economic-loss evidence)