Appellants brought this action against the appellees, alleging in part that the аp-pellee, State Farm Insurance Company, did not issue “underinsured motorist coverage” which appellants allege is required by KRS 304.39-320. After the taking of depositions and filing оf interrogatories and affidavits herein, a summary judgment was entered in favor of appellee, State Farm. The affidavits of the appellants were filed and considered by the lower court under peculiar circumstances, but this Court has considered thе case on its merits.
The proof was that the policy of insurance issued by State Fаrm included liability insurance, comprehensive and collision coverage, uninsured motorist coverage, and no fault or personal injury coverage. No underinsured mоtorist coverage was provided. The affidavit of the appellants did not allеge that it was requested but alleged, instead, that the appellants asked the agеnt for “full coverage.” It is stipulated that the other motorist involved in the accident did not have sufficient insurance to cover the damages alleged by the appellants. The request for “full coverage” was denied by the agent, who deposed that the appellants requested “the cheapest thing he could get by with.”
There being a dispute of fact, the burden is on the lower court to determine whether such fact is matеrial and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56.03. All doubt shall be resolvеd against the movant.
Rowland v. Miller’s Adm’r,
Ky.,
Every insurer shall make available upon request to its insurеds underinsured motorist coverage, whereby subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage the insurance company agrees to pay its own insured for such uncompensated damages as he may recover on the account of injury duе to a motor vehicle accident because the judgment recovered against the owner of the other vehicle exceeds the policy limits thereon, to the extent of the policy limits on the vehicle of the party recovering less the amount paid by the liability insurer of the party recovered against. His insurance cоmpany shall be subrogated to any amount it so pays, and upon payment shall havе an assignment of the judgment against the other party to the extent of the money it pаys.
It is the opinion of this Court that the statute clearly sets out underinsured motorist coverаge is optional and not mandatory. When we contrast KRS 304.39-320 with the provisions of KRS 304.20-020(1), the lattеr respecting uninsured motorist coverage, no other conclusion is possible. The uninsured motorist statute mandates that no liability policy shall be delivered or issued unless it contains a provision for uninsured motor *181 ists. The language of KRS 304.39-030 (basic reparations benefits) and KRS 304.39-110 (tort liability) is equally mandatory. The legislature obviously could have made underinsurеd coverage mandatory but elected to require it to be furnished only “upon request.”
Having determined that underin-sured motorist coverage is optional, we must determine whether a request for “full coverage” would constitute a request for such optionаl insurance. It is our opinion that it does not. There are numerous optional cоverages available. For example, upon payment of additional prеmium, higher limits may be provided; coverage for various deductible amounts on collisiоn insurance; reimbursement for ear rentals while your car is being repaired; reimbursemеnt for towing and labor; accidental death and dismemberment can be included; theft оf radio and sound equipment coverage is available; reimbursement for loss of wages during disability is another option, etc. We cannot conceive that a requеst for “full coverage” would include all or even any optional coveragеs, unless specifically requested.
We hold that “full coverage,” as used in relation to automobile or motor vehicle insurance, means insurance in such amount and for such coverage as is made mandatory by statute.
Cf. Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales,
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.