Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-301
These offers are to be made when a motor vehicle insurance policy is first applied for or issued. For any existing policies, an insurer shall offer such coverage at the first renewal after January 1, 1993. Once an insured has been provided the opportunity to purchase or reject the coverages in writing under the options, no further offer is required to be included with any renewal or replacement policy issued to the insured.
HRS § 431:10C-301
Law Journals and Reviews
Nobody I Know Should Have $35,000 B.I. Limits. 23 HBJ 89.
Discussed, where insurer not legally obligated to pay uninsured motorist benefits claimed where accident occurred in Thailand, a country outside of motor vehicle insurance policy's territorial limit. 134 F. Supp. 2d 1159. Pursuant to subsection (b)(3), insurance coverage for uninsured motorists is "optional coverage". 76 H. 304, 875 P.2d 921. Underinsured motorist coverage was subject to stacking. 77 H. 362, 884 P.2d 1138. Defendant was not a permissive user of insured vehicle and was therefore not a "covered person" under insurance contract. 78 H. 249, 891 P.2d 1041. Named insured under an automobile liability insurance policy, who is injured by hit-and-run driver, can be entitled to uninsured motorist benefits thereunder when the named insured is operating a motorcycle at the time of the named insured's accident. 78 H. 325, 893 P.2d 176. Car rental agreement not contract for insurance and not source of customer's entitlement to insurance coverage; customer statutorily entitled to minimum motor vehicle insurance coverage required by this section.82 Haw. 351,922 P.2d 964. Car rental company, as self-insurer, not subject to subsection (b)(3) and (4); thus, not required to provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to permissive users of its vehicles. 82 H. 466, 923 P.2d 408. Mandatory uninsured motorist offer requirements of subsection (b)(3) apply to the minimum requirements of a "no-fault policy" as specified in subsection (a).82 Haw. 466,923 P.2d 408. Insurer's offer to stack benefits legally insufficient where offer did not clearly convey that insureds could have obtained same amount of coverage at lower premium by selecting stacking option and failed to inform insureds that stacking was available for a relatively modest increase in premium. 87 H. 307, 955 P.2d 100. Section requires that insurer obtain written rejection of stacked coverage; insurer's offer of coverage inconsistent with requirement as offer required insured to affirmatively select, rather than affirmatively reject, stacking option.87 Haw. 307,955 P.2d 100. Though insurer was required under this section to offer stacking option at time of renewal of policy, insurer's failure to do so was irrelevant where policy was not in effect at time of accident.87 Haw. 307,955 P.2d 100. An underinsured motorist carrier's grounds for denying underinsured motorist benefits under a consent-to-settle provision in an underinsured motorist policy must be reasonable, in good faith, and within the bounds of the intent underlying subsection (b)(4). 90 H. 302, 978 P.2d 740. Exhaustion clauses in underinsured motorist policies requiring insured to exhaust tortfeasor's insurance prior to applying for underinsured motorist benefits are void as against public policy.90 Haw. 302,978 P.2d 740. It is unreasonable for an underinsured motorist insurance carrier to precondition its refusal to consent to settle upon the failure of the insured to achieve a settlement exhausting the tortfeasor's policy limits.90 Haw. 302,978 P.2d 740. When an insured makes a material change to an existing policy after a valid rejection of coverage, the resulting policy is not a renewal or replacement policy within the meaning of subsection (d), and a new offer of coverage is required; whether a material change was made is a fact specific determination based on the totality of the circumstances that includes consideration of the public policies underlying Hawaii's motor vehicle insurance code. 93 H. 210, 998 P.2d 490. Trial court correctly ruled that insured was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits where insured's injuries resulting from being shot from an adjacent parked car did not arise from the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.103 Haw. 263, 81 P.3d 1178. Insurer's refusal to consent to settle in order to protect its subrogation rights, in light of its investigation of factors that would render subrogation more or less favorable to insurer, was reasonable; however, having withheld its consent, insurer had to put itself in the position of insured's subrogee by paying insured the amount of the settlement offer. 111 H. 160, 140 P.3d 393. Under the Hawaii motor vehicle insurance statutory scheme, no requirement exists that an injured party exhaust the liability policies of all joint tortfeasors before making a claim against his or her uninsured motorist policy. 88 H. 77 (App.), 961 P.2d 1171. Denial of coverage did not violate subsection (b)(4) where policy did not provide coverage for non-named insureds who are injured while not occupying a covered automobile but clearly provided UIM coverage to persons who are injured while occupying a covered automobile. 88 H. 122 (App.), 962 P.2d 1004. Where injured employee was a permissive user of the company vehicle of the named insured, was using the truck during the course of employee's employment to get to and from the jobsite where employee was injured and to store and transport the equipment that employee was using as part of employee's duties at the time employee was injured, employee demonstrated "some connection with the insured vehicle", and was thus an insured person who was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. 118 H. 123 (App.), 185 P.3d 871. Construing the language of § 431:10C-103 and this section governing uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance according to their plain and commonly understood meaning and in pari materia with §§ 663-10.9 and 663-11, UM and UIM policies must provide coverage for all damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle, which necessarily encompasses damages for which the owner or operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle is jointly and severally liable pursuant to §§ 663-10.9 and 663-11.120 Haw. 329 (App.),205 P.3d 594. To obtain underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in Hawaii, the liability for damages must exceed the total amount of bodily injury liability limits applicable at the time of the loss and the policy limits for uninsured motorist coverage and payments or settlements are not part of that analysis; thus, trial court correctly determined that the joint and several "damages imposed by law" against the driver exceeded the cumulative limits of driver's bodily injury policies, driver met the statutory definition of an UIM, and the insurer therefore was obligated to pay victim UIM benefits to compensate victim for the difference.120 Haw. 329 (App.),205 P.3d 594. Where the "other insurance" clause contained in insurer's policy created a priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and did not limit or reduce insurer's liability for uninsured motorist payments to insured, the provision was valid and enforceable under Hawaii law, and the circuit court did not err in denying insured's motion for partial summary judgment.120 Haw. 329 (App.),205 P.3d 594. Discussed: 77 H. 117, 883 P.2d 38; 86 H. 511, 950 P.2d 695. Mentioned: 807 F. Supp. 98.