As a car wreck attorney, I am often faced with the issue of determining the amount of insurance coverage that an insured has available under their existing uninsured motorist coverage. One of the most commonly litigated issues in uninsured motorist law is the issue of "stacking" coverage limits. "Stacking" is defined as the aggregation or combination of policy limits for uninsured motorist coverage under different policies for different vehicles. Stacking of policy limits allows the injured insured to recover the full amount of damages caused by a car wreck with an underinsured motorist. The question of stacking coverage usually is seen in two situations: (1) where stacking of policy limits are used to qualify an insured for underinsured motorist coverage, and (2) the traditional situation where stacking is used to allow the insured to recover full damages.
While a few states do not allow stacking for the purpose of triggering underinsured motorist coverage, the majority of states allow some type of stacking for the injured insured's benefit. As a result of liberal interpretation by courts in favor of allowing stacking in underinsured motorists coverage litigation, insurance companies have added "antistacking" clauses to their uninsured motorist policies. The antistacking language often times precludes coverage in situations where other insurance exists.
In Mississippi, the injured insured is classified as either a Class I or Class II insured and this classification determines whether the insured is allowed to stack uninsured motorist coverage. The Class I and Class II distinction of insureds depends upon the following: Whether the person is a "named" insured on the subject policy(ies) or whether the person is an occupant who is eligible for underinsured motorist coverage only because of their "occupancy" in the particular vehicle involved in the car accident.
A Class I insured includes the named insured on the subject automobile insurance policy and the named insured's relatives that reside in the same household. Mississippi courts allow a Class I insured to stack uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage limits. Therefore, a named insured's coverage is far broader than that that of an occupancy insured, and a Class I insured's coverage is not limited to incidents where they are an occupant in the insured vehicle.
An occupancy insured or Class II insured is an individual who is only an insured because they are an occupant of the insured vehicle at the time of the car accident. As stated previously, in Mississippi a Class I insured may stack uninsured motorist coverage, however, a Class II insured is only entitled to the coverage limits provided by the uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits for the covered vehicle which was occupied at the time of the accident. In other words, a Class II insured is only allowed the uninsured motorist coverage on the vehicle in which they were a passenger at the time of the car wreck. A Class II insured is not an insured under any additional policy insuring additional vehicles insured by the owner of the occupied vehicle.
To review stacking principles, please note the following factual example:
Mr. Brown is fatally injured in a two vehicle accident as a result of the negligence of an underinsured motorist. Mr. Brown was riding as an occupant in a vehicle insured and owned by Mr. Joe. Mr. Brown has two automobile insurance policies for two separately insured vehicles; each policy has uninsured motorist coverage policy limits in the amount of $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident. Mr. Joe has uninsured motorist coverage policy limits for the occupied vehicle in the amount of $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident. Mr. Joe also has numerous other insurance policies insuring different uninvolved vehicles. Mr. Brown's actual damages are more than the amount of liability coverage limits held by the at-fault driver.
Regarding stacking, Mr. Brown is a named insured or Class I insured under his two automobile insurance policies. Therefore, Mr. Brown's estate may stack those two uninsured motorist policy limits with that of the vehicle owned by Mr. Joe in which Mr. Brown was a passenger.
With regard to the vehicle owned and insured by Mr. Joe, Mr. Brown qualifies as a Class II or occupancy insured as he was riding as a passenger in that vehicle. Thus, Mr. Brown's estate may stack his own two uninsured motorist coverage policy limits with the policy limits of the vehicle in which he was riding. However, because Mr. Brown is a Class II insured regarding Mr. Joe's policy for the involved vehicle, the estate is not allowed to stack Mr. Joe's uninsured motorist coverage limits on the separate policies covering Mr. Joe's other vehicles that were not involved in the subject car wreck.
Let us change the above scenario to address corporate coverage. Assume that Mr. Brown is an employee of Mr. Joe. In addition to the uninsured motorist coverage on the occupied vehicle, Mr. Joe also has 31 additional vehicles insured as a part of his business. Where Mr. Brown is an employee occupying a vehicle covered under his employer's business automobile policy and is not a named insured under the employer's policy Mr. Brown is a Class II insured and he does not have the right to stack his employer's 31 additional policies' uninsured motorist coverage.
The issue of stacking is an important consideration when one must determine how much coverage is available following a car wreck with an uninsured or underinsured at-fault motorist. As such, familiarize yourself with the law of your state as it applies to stacking and be aware of your automobile insurance policy language as it applies to uninsured motorist coverage.
While a few states do not allow stacking for the purpose of triggering underinsured motorist coverage, the majority of states allow some type of stacking for the injured insured's benefit. As a result of liberal interpretation by courts in favor of allowing stacking in underinsured motorists coverage litigation, insurance companies have added "antistacking" clauses to their uninsured motorist policies. The antistacking language often times precludes coverage in situations where other insurance exists.
In Mississippi, the injured insured is classified as either a Class I or Class II insured and this classification determines whether the insured is allowed to stack uninsured motorist coverage. The Class I and Class II distinction of insureds depends upon the following: Whether the person is a "named" insured on the subject policy(ies) or whether the person is an occupant who is eligible for underinsured motorist coverage only because of their "occupancy" in the particular vehicle involved in the car accident.
A Class I insured includes the named insured on the subject automobile insurance policy and the named insured's relatives that reside in the same household. Mississippi courts allow a Class I insured to stack uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage limits. Therefore, a named insured's coverage is far broader than that that of an occupancy insured, and a Class I insured's coverage is not limited to incidents where they are an occupant in the insured vehicle.
An occupancy insured or Class II insured is an individual who is only an insured because they are an occupant of the insured vehicle at the time of the car accident. As stated previously, in Mississippi a Class I insured may stack uninsured motorist coverage, however, a Class II insured is only entitled to the coverage limits provided by the uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits for the covered vehicle which was occupied at the time of the accident. In other words, a Class II insured is only allowed the uninsured motorist coverage on the vehicle in which they were a passenger at the time of the car wreck. A Class II insured is not an insured under any additional policy insuring additional vehicles insured by the owner of the occupied vehicle.
To review stacking principles, please note the following factual example:
Mr. Brown is fatally injured in a two vehicle accident as a result of the negligence of an underinsured motorist. Mr. Brown was riding as an occupant in a vehicle insured and owned by Mr. Joe. Mr. Brown has two automobile insurance policies for two separately insured vehicles; each policy has uninsured motorist coverage policy limits in the amount of $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident. Mr. Joe has uninsured motorist coverage policy limits for the occupied vehicle in the amount of $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident. Mr. Joe also has numerous other insurance policies insuring different uninvolved vehicles. Mr. Brown's actual damages are more than the amount of liability coverage limits held by the at-fault driver.
Regarding stacking, Mr. Brown is a named insured or Class I insured under his two automobile insurance policies. Therefore, Mr. Brown's estate may stack those two uninsured motorist policy limits with that of the vehicle owned by Mr. Joe in which Mr. Brown was a passenger.
With regard to the vehicle owned and insured by Mr. Joe, Mr. Brown qualifies as a Class II or occupancy insured as he was riding as a passenger in that vehicle. Thus, Mr. Brown's estate may stack his own two uninsured motorist coverage policy limits with the policy limits of the vehicle in which he was riding. However, because Mr. Brown is a Class II insured regarding Mr. Joe's policy for the involved vehicle, the estate is not allowed to stack Mr. Joe's uninsured motorist coverage limits on the separate policies covering Mr. Joe's other vehicles that were not involved in the subject car wreck.
Let us change the above scenario to address corporate coverage. Assume that Mr. Brown is an employee of Mr. Joe. In addition to the uninsured motorist coverage on the occupied vehicle, Mr. Joe also has 31 additional vehicles insured as a part of his business. Where Mr. Brown is an employee occupying a vehicle covered under his employer's business automobile policy and is not a named insured under the employer's policy Mr. Brown is a Class II insured and he does not have the right to stack his employer's 31 additional policies' uninsured motorist coverage.
The issue of stacking is an important consideration when one must determine how much coverage is available following a car wreck with an uninsured or underinsured at-fault motorist. As such, familiarize yourself with the law of your state as it applies to stacking and be aware of your automobile insurance policy language as it applies to uninsured motorist coverage.
About the Author:
Melinda O. Johnson, who has been a practicing insurance lawyer in Biloxi, Gulfport and Ocean Springs, Mississippi for the last 18 years, has been a featured speaker in seminars for claims personnel of large insurance companies and for fellow attorneys on the topics of insurance coverage, personal injury, and car accident litigation. To learn more about Melinda's experience and these topics visit her website or call her at (228) 447-3504.. This article, How to Determine the Amount of Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Coverage Available is available for free reprint.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment