# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 60183 Summary Calendar

**____________ Farmers Direct Property and Casualty Insurance**  **Company,** formerly known as **Metropolitan Direct Property** and **Casualty Insurance Company,** Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus **Jonathan Elijah Yates,** Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:22

- CV -188

**______________________________** Before **Jones ,**  **Smith ,**  and **Dennis ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Plaintiff

– Appellant Farmers Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Farmers”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant

– Appellee Jonathan Elijah Yates and declaration that under Mississippi law Yates may “stack” four uninsured motorist

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 17, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60183 Document: 00516933415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2023No. 23

- 60183

2 (“UM”) coverage limits for four separate vehicles covered under the automobile policy of the owner of a vehicle in which Yates was injured. The parties filed an agreed stipulation of facts before the district court, stating that Yat es suffered economic and non

- economic damages in excess of $450,000 as a result of the single

– vehicle accident. Yates was riding as a guest passenger in a vehicle leased by Mitzi and Garry Birks that was being driven around by their grandson, Camron Flynn

— whose negligence caused the accident. Flynn is an “underinsured” motorist because his liabilit y coverage does not cover Yates’s total damages. At the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was insured under a personal automobile insurance policy issued by Farmers , which covered four total vehicles belonging to the Birks. As relevant to this appeal, the policy states that “ [t] he limit of liability shown in the Declarations for ‘each person’ is the most we will pay for all damages . . . due to [bodily injury] to any one person as the result of any one accident . . . is the most we will pay rega rdless of the number of . . . vehicles shown in the Declarations.” Farmers argued that this provision expressly limits stacking. The district court rejected this argument and found the provision to be void because it improperly imposed a blanket ban on sta cking by all insureds in violation of the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law (“MMVSRL”) , which prohibits the limiting of stacking benefits by contract for Class I insureds, which includes the “named insured, and residents of the same house hold, his spouse and relatives of either, while in a motor vehicle or otherwise.” See Miss. Code Ann. § 83

- 11

- 101(1) ; Meyers v. Am. States Ins. Co., 914 So. 2d 669, 674 (Miss. 2005) (“we have always recognized the inherent entitlement of Class I insureds t o stack coverage for which they contracted”). Because stacking is mandatory for Class I insureds, and the provision makes no distinction between Class I insureds and those Case: 23-60183 Document: 00516933415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2023No. 23

- 60183

3 considered to be Class II insureds 1 because they are only covered because they were in the covered vehicle, the district court properly found the purported anti

- stacking provision to be void as a matter of public policy. See Harthcock v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 248 So. 2d 456, 459 (Miss. 1971) (“The coverage afforded by these pol icies is mandatory under the statute and may not be cut down by a policy exclusion.”) ; see also Richards v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 693 F.2d 502, 505 (5th Cir. 1982)

. Even if the at

– issue provision were not void, Farmers failed to include an express anti

– stacking provision in compliance with Meyers v. Am. States Ins. Co. , 914 So. 2d 669, 673 (Miss. 2005). Although under Mississippi law Farmers could have limited the stacking available to insureds like Flynn

— who is not a named insured under the policy but u sed the covered vehicle with the Birds’ consent

— here the insurance policy contained no express provision prohibiting stacking of uninsured motorist benefits. Brewer By & Through Brewer v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. , 328 So. 3d 721, 726 (Miss. Ct . App.), reh ’ g denied (Aug. 31, 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Brewer v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. , 329 So. 3d 1199 (Miss. 2021) (“[T]he absence of an express prohibition on stacking allows Brewer to stack the UM benefits of the vehicles insured under the same policy.”); see id. ( Valid anti

– stacking provision must expressly state that coverage “ shall not be stacked, aggregated, pyramided or otherwise combined

. ”) ( italics in original). For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**_____________________**
1 It is undisputed that Yates is a Class II insured. Case: 23-60183 Document: 00516933415 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/17/2023