Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Macri
Supreme Court of California · 1992
4 Cal.4th 318, pp. 323–329
Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin
California State Bar #45226 ↗ · Approval recorded November 4, 2026
How we record review approvalWhat brought the case to court?
A person hurt in a crash settled for the at-fault driver’s policy limit. Her own insurer then disputed benefits. It said she had settled without its consent.
The question before the court
Did the consent-to-settle rule at issue apply to UIM benefits too?
What the court decided
The court said that this consent rule did not apply to UIM benefits. Other UIM conditions still needed to be met. The ruling did not make UM and UIM the same.
Where the rule has limits
Read the current law and policy. Do not assume the same steps apply to both kinds of coverage.
Read the actual decision
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Macri — full opinion ↗
Legal review is recorded above.
Questions this decision helps explain
Court decisions have distinct facts. Read the opinion and the qualifications in each guide before applying a rule to a different situation.