Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207938/Ronnie-Dooley-v-Hartford-Accident-Indemnity-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:49:28+00:00

Document:
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Gregory joined.
DOOLEY v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO.
LAW FIRM, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Kathryn E.
Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.
specify any particular amount of UM/UIM coverage afforded.
years without requesting any changes to his coverage.
Dooleys wife, Phyllis Dooley, also was an insured party under the policy.
damages, but those classes of coverage are not at issue in this appeal.
as a result of the operation or use of the vehicle." Va. Code 38.22206(B).
sought payment from Hartford based on the UM/UIM coverage provided in the 2008 policy (the UM/UIM endorsement).
per person for each covered vehicle.
uninsured motor vehicle or an underinsured motor vehicle."
likewise did not contain any specified amount of such coverage.
stacking the UM/UIM coverage of $100,000 per person provided in the policy for each of the three insured vehicles.
covered vehicles, for a total amount of up to $300,000.
case, the statute provides that the UM/UIM coverage limits "shall equal"
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2012); Fed. R.
that he was not entitled to stack the UM/UIM coverage provided under the 2008 policy for the three insured vehicles.
UM/UIM coverage limits had been erroneously omitted from the policy.
need not address it in this appeal.
2008 policy. We disagree with Dooleys arguments.
plain meaning as written. Williams, 677 S.E.2d at 302; Va.
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gile, 524 S.E.2d 642, 645 (Va.
the policy to prevent such multiple coverage." Goodville Mut.
Cas. Co. v. Borror, 275 S.E.2d 625, 627 (Va. 1981) (interpreting Cunningham v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 189 S.E.2d 832 (Va.
1972) and Lipscombe v. Sec. Ins. Co., 189 S.E.2d 320 (Va.
indemnity," the amount of coverage afforded should be proportionate to the amount of premiums paid by the insured.
language in the policy prohibiting multiple coverage. See Lipscombe, 213 S.E.2d at 322-23.
only one or both of the two insured vehicles for which separate premiums were paid. Id. at 323.
which this insurance applies." Id. at 628.
vehicles to which this insurance applies." Id. at 300.
ambiguous when read in the context of the entire policy. Id.
$300,000 for each person. Id.
insured party to stack UM/UIM coverage. Id.
the [d]eclarations for each person for [UM/UIM] Coverage."
the policy or premiums paid.
there are no limits "shown in the [d]eclarations for each person for [UM/UIM] Coverage." We disagree.
amounts, in contrast to previous versions of the policy.
but also states that UM/UIM coverage "shall equal" the general "limits of the liability insurance provided by the policy."
vehicle. See Goodville, 275 S.E.2d at 628.
stacking the UM/UIM coverage for each insured vehicle.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.