Kalista v. Pacific Employer's Insurance, Unpublished Decision (6-12-2003)

**The Dispute** This case involved an employee who was injured in a car accident and sought coverage under their employer's uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance policy provided by Pacific Employer's Insurance. The insurance company denied coverage, claiming they had properly offered and the employee had declined this type of protection. The employee disagreed and sued, arguing the insurance company never properly offered the coverage as required by law. **The Court's Decision** The appellate court sided with the injured employee. The court found that Pacific Employer's Insurance had failed to follow proper legal procedures when offering uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Because the insurer didn't comply with statutory requirements, the court ruled the employee was automatically entitled to this coverage, regardless of what may have been discussed previously. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects employees by ensuring insurance companies follow strict rules when offering coverage options. If your employer's insurer fails to properly offer uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, you may still be entitled to that protection even if you thought you didn't have it. This is especially important for workers who suffer injuries in car accidents involving uninsured drivers.