Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in a single limits policy covering multiple vehicles as to sums required to be provided by statute. Id. at 431, 475 S.E.2d at 775. The supreme court reversed the court of appeals and held that a policy provision prohibiting stacking of liability coverage is valid because “[liability coverage, ... while statutorily required, is limited to the particular vehicle for which it is purchased.” Ruppe v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 329 S.C. 402, 406, 496 S.E.2d 631, 633 (1998). The Ruppe case is not dispositive in this case, however, because we determined that no Class I insured was involved in the accident. Inasmuch as the appellants were Class II insureds under the garage policy, none were entitled to stack. Fireman’s Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 295 S.C. 538, 370 S.E.2d 85 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Therefore the order of the circuit court is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action (B) recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members (C) holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent (D) holding that although class i insureds may stack coverage class ii insureds may not (E) holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied
Output (English): holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent