# Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Macri

Canonical: https://californiapersonalinjurylaws.com/cases/macri/

Supreme Court of California, 1992. 4 Cal.4th 318, pp. 323–329.

Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin; publisher reported approval 2026-11-04. The original review date was not supplied.

## Case background

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.

## 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.

## Limits

Read the current law and policy. Do not assume the same steps apply to both kinds of coverage.

## Opinion

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/4/318.html