United States Court of Appeals

for 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: 10/17/2023
No. 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 

Yates 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 liability 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 regardless 

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 stacking 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 household, 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 to 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: 10/17/2023
No. 23-60183

3

considered to be Class II insureds1 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 policies 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 used 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