The appellate court noted that, in the context of UIM coverage, no extra-contractual claims arise from the failure to pay contractual benefits where no judgment or other judicial determination has been made establishing the liability and amount of damages caused by the alleged tortfeasor. The court also distinguished Menchaca because it was not a UIM case, and, even if it did apply, the insured's pleading did not include any allegations of an "independent injury" unrelated to her contractual claim for the denial of UIM benefits.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login