Action for uninsured & underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits; Policy provision precluding coverage due to settlement without the insurer’s consent; Whether the policy had a subrogation clause

The court held that because plaintiff-Beard settled his prior case with the driver and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident without defendant-Progressive’s consent, Progressive was not required to provide him UM/UIM coverage under the terms of his insurance policy. Further, it found that the policy contained a subrogation clause, and even if it had not, the policy’s plain language barred his claim for UM/UIM benefits. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting Progressive summary disposition of Beard’s claim for UM/UIM benefits. He contended he did not have to obtain Progressive’s permission to settle the other case “because the relevant consent provision only applied to uninsured motorist benefits, not underinsured motorist benefits.” But the court, in addition to agreeing with Progressive that the policy’s UM/UIM benefits provision included “the term ‘underinsured motor vehicle,’” concluded Beard’s arguments failed “for a more basic reason: under the policy, settlement without consent may preclude coverage for uninsured, underinsured, or other benefits. Two other provisions in the policy govern settlements without consent, and neither references ‘uninsured’ or ‘underinsured’ vehicles.” The policy unambiguously provided “that UM/UIM coverage ‘will not apply . . . to bodily injury sustained by any person if that person or the legal representative of that person settles without our written consent.’” There was no dispute that occurred here. The court further found Beard’s reliance “on language from the ‘Insuring Agreement’ portion of the UM/UIM coverage section” misplaced, determining the language related “to a lawsuit brought without consent, not a settlement reached without consent.” The court also rejected his argument there was no subrogation clause in the policy and absent “a right to subrogation, requiring an insurer’s consent to settle has no purpose and is unreasonable.” It first found that the policy did contain a subrogation clause, although it was not labeled as such. Second, it concluded that because the policy unambiguously barred his claim for UM/UIM benefits, “the reasonableness or purpose of the requirement for a policyholder to seek Progressive’s consent is irrelevant.”