Opinion ID: 1776596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of Stacking

Text: Where an insured loss exceeds the limits of one uninsured motorist policy, the insured may stack other uninsured motorist policies to cover up to the actual damages sustained. General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gilmore, 294 Ala. 546, 319 So.2d 675 (1975); Great Central Insurance Co. v. Edge, 292 Ala. 613, 298 So.2d 607 (1974); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cahoon, 287 Ala. 462, 252 So.2d 619 (1971); Ala.Code 1975, § 32-7-23(c). Section 32-7-23(c) provides, The recovery by an injured person under the uninsured provisions of any one contract of automobile insurance shall be limited to the primary coverage plus such additional coverage as may be provided for additional vehicles, but not to exceed two additional coverages within such contract. Stacking is limited to one policy or contract of insurance. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fox, 541 So.2d 1070 (Ala.1989). Powell argues that the Ford Escort was automatically covered under the newly-acquired-motor-vehicle provision in the undisputed Oldsmobile policy, and that she should be allowed to stack coverage under that provision. The Oldsmobile insurance policy provides: This coverage does not apply if there is other uninsured motor vehicle coverage on a newly acquired car. Powell concedes that the policy on the Oldsmobile excludes uninsured motorist coverage on newly acquired vehicles that are covered by other insurance. However, she argues that she was a permissive driver, not an insured under the Auto Owners policy, and therefore, that the exclusion does not apply to her. Powell's argument is without merit. The exclusion stated in the policy does not distinguish between insured and permissive driver. It simply states that there is no uninsured motorist coverage for a newly acquired vehicle that is covered by another insurance policy. Although our law recognizes the right to stack under a single policy of insurance, Powell was not entitled to the stacking she seeks, because the Ford Escort was excluded from coverage by the fact that it was covered by another insurance policy. The trial court correctly held that the Ford Escort was not covered under the Oldsmobile policy. Because Powell failed to prove by substantial evidence that State Farm agreed to insure the Ford Escort and because the Ford Escort was not covered under the newly-acquired-motor-vehicle provision of the Oldsmobile policy, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed. AFFIRMED. SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.