This example. Actual is 50 (whatever actual includes). Exactly 50. Both drivers have 25 limits.
The max.settlement can be 50?
If so then both drivers would have been determined to be 100% liable such that the max. limits of both their policies are being used to satisfy the settlement.
No, your conclusion is wrong because you are once again misunderstanding the way the limits work. Here is how it goes step by step:
(1) Determine the amount of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. Here it is $50,000.
(2) Determine the extent of each driver’s degree of fault for the accident. Let's say Driver A is 60% at fault and Driver B is 40% at fault. That means that Driver A is responsible to pay $30,000 of the damages and Driver B is responsible to pay $20,000.
(3) Apply the insurance policy limits to THE ACTUAL DAMAGES determine how much of each driver’s liability the insurance company will pay. Here Driver A is responsible to pay $30,000 (60% of $50,000) but his insurance limit is $25,000. So the insurance company will only pay the $25,000 (the limit) and Driver A pays $5,000 out of his own pocket. Driver B is liable to pay $20,000 (40% of $50,000), and his insurance limit is $25,000. So his insurance company will pay the full $20,000 Driver B owes as his liability did not exceed his limit.
You seem intent on trying to apply the degree of faul to the insurance limit rather than the actual damages. I've told you before that is wrong; that is not how it works. The at fault driver's insurance pays out whatever the driver is liable to pay, up to the policy limit.
That limit does not get reduced by the degree of fault of the driver, which is apparently what you are doing. In other words, Driver A is 60% at fault. That 60% is not applied to the policy limit for A to reduce what the insurance company will pay. That is, it is not the case that he insurance company can say that it only has to pay $15,000 (60% of $25,000) based on A's fault. Rather the insurance company has to pay out all of what the driver is liable to pay, up to the limit amount. So however much A is at fault, the insurance company will pay it up to $25,000. The degree of A's fault does not affect his limit. The degree of fault affects how much of the plaintiff's damages he must pay, i.e. how much of the $50,000 he is responsible to pay.
Again, the 60% is applied to the actual damages ($50,000) and that determines what A owes. Then the limit ($25,000) is used to determine how much of A's liability the insurance company pays. If what A owes is more than that limit then the insurance company only pays out the limit and A has to pay the rest. The limit of $25,000 does not change regardless of what A's degree of fault is.
So, back to the $50,000 of actual damages. If driver A and driver B were equally at fault, then the amount each must pay is $25,000 (50% of $50,000). They both have limits of $25,000. In this situation, the insurance company pays out $50,000 — the total amount of the plaintiff's damages — because neither A's nor B's limit was exceeded. This does not mean, as you said that A & B are each 100% liable. They aren't. If they were each 100% liable then each would have to pay $50,000 and then the total the plaintiff would get would be $100,000, which is more than his actual damages $50,000 and of course that isn't how it works. A and B are each 50% liable and have to pay $25,000 each. Since their limit was not exceeded, the insurance company pays out the full $25,000 for each. So the plaintiff gets paid for all his damages from the insurance, but each driver only paid (and was only responsible to pay) 50% of it, not 100%.