Tamara Seeck, Appellant v. Geico General Insurance Co., Respondent

Summary

The Court held that Seeck's insurance policy was ambiguous because its other-insurance clause reasonably appeared to provide excess underinsured-motorist coverage, despite other provisions suggesting that coverage was unavailable or reduced to zero. The ambiguity was resolved in Seeck's favor, and the Court rejected Geico's reliance on the settlement release because Geico was not a third-party beneficiary and its possible subrogation dispute was not ripe. The summary judgment for Geico was reversed and the case was remanded.