Reinsurance Law Blog

Reinsurance Law Blog

Tag Archives: stacking

UM coverage on vehicle involved in the accident is primary — Arkansas App.

Posted in Contractual Liability, Vehicle
In Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 2016 Ark. App. 563, Roberson was injured while driving a car insured by Shelter.  Roberson had UM coverage through Southern Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau).  Shelter paid Roberson’s claim and argued that either Farm Bureau was liable for the damages under its “other insurance”… Continue Reading

Injury is either within the products completed work hazard or it isn’t — it cannot be both in order to increase limits. Alabama law

Posted in Contractual Liability
In Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company v. Advanced Specialty Pharmacy, Advanced provided a tainted IV product which caused patient infections.  Pharmacists was Advanced’s insurer, and put $4 million into an interpleader fund to be divided among the claimants.  The claimants and Advanced claimed Pharmacists’ limits were $7 million and the trial court agreed on summary judgment. … Continue Reading

Anti-stacking UM policy struck down — again! Missouri law

Posted in New Case
In Nationwide v. Dugger, Tanya Dugger’s daughter was killed when the vehicle she was riding in was struck by a train.  Tanya Dugger had an automobile policy with Nationwide that insured two vehicles. The Policy contained anti-stacking language purporting to limit Tanya to a single payment of $25,000 for her UM coverage. The trial court… Continue Reading

Underinsured Motorist Coverage stacked where policy was ambiguous — Missouri law

Posted in New Case
In Martin v. Auto Owner’s Insurance, summary judgment to the insurance company was reversed by the Missouri Court of Appeals. Dylan, a minor, was struck by Loyd when Dylan was crossing the road to board a school bus. Dylan’s damages exceeded $300,000, and Loyd’s paid $100,000. Dylan’s parents, the Martins, had underinsured motorist coverage (UIM)… Continue Reading

No stacking of automobile liability coverage, Missouri law.

Posted in Contractual Liability, New Case, Vehicle
Hiles had two cars, insured under different policies.  Hiles was at fault in an accident that hurt Dutton. Dutton claimed his damages exceeded the minimum limits required by Missouri’s financial responsibility law (MVFRL), which were the limits on Hiles’ policy.  Dutton claimed the MVFRL required payment under the policy of Hiles’ other car, which was… Continue Reading

No Underinsured Stacking — Missouri law

Posted in New Case
Statutes require stacking of uninsured coverage but not of underinsured coverage. Decedent had two policies, one for each motorcycle he owned, each with a $300,000 limit. Policy provision that "limits shown for a vehicle may not be combined with the limits for the same coverage on another vehicle" unambiguously barred stacking. Using "combine" for one coverage and "stack" for another, and "vehicle" in one place and "motorcycle" in another, did not create ambiguity. Summary judgment for insurer affirmed.… Continue Reading

“Owned” vehicle exclusion and underinsured motorist coverage, Missouri law

Posted in New Case
Owned vehicle exclusion did not apply to preclude coverage where insured was in the process of buying vehicle and had made payments, but did not have full rights to vehicle. If underinsured motorist coverage can be stacked, then the stacked limits are compared to the tortfeasor's limits to determine if the the tortfeasor is underinsured. The underinsured motorist insurers are not entitled to offset amounts paid by the tortfeasor or other parties, especially if the payments do not cover the insured's damages.… Continue Reading

Underinsurance – Stacking more than one UM policy — Missouri law

Posted in Contractual Liability
Where the policy provided that underinsured motorist coverage limits would be excess to other underinsured benefits paid to the insured, the policy was not ambiguous. The fact that another underinsured motorist insurer paid more to the insured than the limits of the State Farm policy meant that there was nothing further owed to the insured under the policy. (Missouri law)… Continue Reading
Lexblog