Our research indicates that a slight majority of courts that have considered the issue have determined that the phrase “legally entitled to recover,” or its equivalent, means that an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage merely by establishing fault on the part of the tortfeasor and the amount of the insured's damages; the tortfeasor's immunity, for whatever reason, does not prevent coverage. See Hettel v. Rye, 251 Ark. 868, 475 S.W.2d 536 (1972); Borjas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 33 P.3d 1265 (Colo.App.2001); Tinsley v. Worldwide Ins. Co., 212 Ga.App. 809, 442 S.E.2d 877 (1994); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elkins, 63 Ill.App.3d 62, 21 Ill.Dec. 66, 381 N.E.2d 1 (1978); Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. Lamb, 361 N.E.2d 174 (Ind.Ct.App.1977); Speer v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 43 Kan.App.2d 520, 226 P.3d 558 (2010) (involved underinsured coverage); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Preston, 26 S.W.3d 145 (Ky.2000); West American Ins. Co. v. Popa, 352 Md. 455, 723 A.2d 1 (1998); Reese v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.2d 205 (Mo.Ct.App.1970); Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993); Boradiansky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 141 N.M. 387, 156 P.3d 25 (2007); Deluca v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 76, 268 N.Y.S.2d 289, 215 N.E.2d 482 (1966); Williams v. Holsclaw, 128 N.C.App. 205, 495 S.E.2d 166 (1998); Torres v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 407 (Okla.1993); Sahloff v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Wis.2d 60, 171 N.W.2d 914 (1969). A leading case that illustrates the majority interpretation of the phrase “legally entitled to recover” is Borjas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 33 P.3d 1265 (Colo.App.2001).
Our research indicates that a slight majority of courts that have considered the issue have determined that the phrase "legally entitled to recover," or its equivalent, means that an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage merely by establishing fault on the part of the tortfeasor and the amount of the insured's damages; the tortfeasor's immunity, for whatever reason, does not prevent coverage. See Hettel v. Rye, 475 S.W.2d 536 (Ark. 1972); Borjas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 33 P.3d 1265 (Colo. App. 2001); Tinsley v. Worldwide Ins. Co., 442 S.E.2d 877 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elkins, 381 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 1978); Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. Lamb, 361 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977); Speer v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 226 P.3d 558 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010) (involved underinsured coverage); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Preston, 26 S.W.3d 145 (Ky. 2000); West American Ins. Co. v. Popa, 723 A.2d 1 (Md. 1998); Reese v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970); Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 858 P.2d 380 (Nev. 1993); Boradiansky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 156 P.3d 25 (N.M. 2007); Deluca v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 268 N.Y.S.2d 289 (N.Y. 1966); Williams v. Holsclaw, 495 S.E.2d 166 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998); Torres v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 849 P.2d 407 (Okla. 1993); Sahloff v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 171 N.W.2d 914 (Wis. 1969).
See, e.g.,Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Trosky, 918 N.E.2d 1, 9 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (“[T]he sovereign immunity defense is not available to UIM carriers who argue that once the statutory cap has been paid by the governmental unit, the insured is no longer ‘legally entitled to recover.’ ”); Speer v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 43 Kan.App.2d 520, 226 P.3d 558 (2010); West Am. Ins. Co. v. Popa, 352 Md. 455, 723 A.2d 1 (1998); Boradiansky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 141 N.M. 387, 156 P.3d 25 (2007); but see Kendall v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 23 So.3d 1119 (Ala.2009); Matarese v. New Hampshire Mun. Ass'n Prop.–Liab. Ins. Trust, Inc., 147 N.H. 396, 791 A.2d 175 (2002).