Opinion ID: 1492700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: stacking uninsured motorists coverages

Text: As noted above, the court found, as a matter of law, the provisions of the uninsured motorist coverage in all three policies excluded from coverage any relative who owns a car, and that Stephen was such an owner. We have this date decided Lightner v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., 789 S.W.2d 487 (Mo. banc 1990), involving an issue similar to that presented here. Lightner required interpretation of the term owned in connection with uninsured motorist coverage and because of particular circumstances in that case, we held the minor, Tim Lightner, though he had permission to drive and his name had been added to the title, was not the owner of the car in question. Had it been otherwise, he would have been excluded from stacking his claims for uninsured motorists coverage with his parents' policies. Abundant evidence supported the conclusion that Tim Lightner did not own the car; here, however, the facts are quite different. The car was purchased approximately seven months before the accident and we are not told the circumstances regarding the purchase, only that the car was titled in the son and father's names. Unlike Lightner , there is no testimony except that the car belonged to Stephen. He had purchased automobile insurance in his name and coincidentally his parents removed him as a youthful driver from the insurance coverage on their cars. Any possible inference that Stephen did not own the Plymouth was dispelled by the stipulation's unequivocal recitation that Stephen owned the car jointly with his father. There is substantial evidence supporting the court's determination prohibiting stacking and we see nothing requiring us to declare such exclusion invalid or expressly contrary to any Missouri statute or public policy. See Famuliner v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., 619 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1981).