Section 6.40 Anti-Stacking Clauses

• Library: Insurance Practice 2015

“Stacking” refers to an insured’s ability to obtain multiple insurance coverage benefits for an injury either from more than one policy, e.g., when the insured has two or more separate vehicles under separate policies, or from multiple coverages provided for within a single policy, e.g., when an insured has one policy that covers more than one vehicle. There is no public policy that mandates “stacking” of UIM policies, but if the policy is ambiguous in disallowing stacking or if it treats UIM coverage the same as UM coverage, stacking will be permitted. Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo., 992 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).

Most UIM policies contain anti-stacking provisions that read something like the following:

The most we will pay for all claims from a single accident is the Limit of Coverage for Uninsured Motorist Coverage shown on the Coverage Data Page. This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of: . . . . (c) Vehicles or premiums shown on the Coverage Data Page.

Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Ltd., 827 S.W.2d 208, 212 (Mo. banc 1992).

With respect to any accident or occurrence to which this and any other auto policy issued to you by any member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies applies, the total limit of liability under all the policies shall not exceed the highest applicable limit of liability under any one policy.

Tegtmeyer v. Snellen, 791 S.W.2d 737, 738–39 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990).

These kinds of policy provisions in an insurance policy that limit the insured’s recovery to only one policy limit are prohibited by public policy in a UM case in accordance with § 379.203, RSMo 2000. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Mo. banc 1976). There are no statutory requirements in Missouri, however, for UIM coverage and, therefore, an insured’s ability to stack the coverage is ordinarily determined by contract.

Rodriguez v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991), is an example of a case in which the underinsured anti-stacking clause was found unambiguous. Consequently, it was enforced. In a large number of policies, however, UIM coverage and UM coverage have been lumped into the same provisions of the policy or have been described in the same section of the declarations page. When the insurance carrier lumps the two together, the UIM coverage will be treated as UM coverage for the purposes of stacking, and stacking will be allowed. See Krombach, 827 S.W.2d...