Opinion ID: 1631268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Relation to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Law

Text: ¶ 10. Britt attempts to justify receipt of $15,000 under the three remaining policies by citing and relying on uninsured motorist (UM) jurisprudence. Such reliance is misplaced. We have held as a matter of public policy that stacking of UM coverage is mandatory for every vehicle covered under a policy and that anti-stacking clauses as applied to UM coverage are unenforceable. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Ferguson, 698 So.2d 77, 79 (Miss.1997). See Ted King, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 632 F.Supp. 443, 444-45 (S.D.Miss.1986). This public policy position is based on the intent of our uninsured motorist law [ ] to provide the insured with adequate protection against injury caused by an uninsured motorist. Ferguson, 698 So.2d at 79. ¶ 11. Such a public policy or statutory directive is not present in the medical payments context. Provisions limiting stacking are therefore still governed by the terms of each insurance policy. The Fifth Circuit addressed this proposition in Szumigala v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 853 F.2d 274 (5th Cir.1988) (applying Mississippi law). The court held: Because there are no equivalent statutory provisions in Mississippi that affect medical payment coverage contained in automobile insurance policies, we hold such coverage is governed by the terms of each insurance policy in which it is afforded, including terms of limitation such as Nationwide's anti-stacking clause. That separate premiums are charged for each vehicle does not alone justify stacked recovery of medical payments, since the premium paid on each successive vehicle affords protection to non-relatives who might be injured while occupying those vehicles. Id. at 279 (citations & footnotes omitted). The Fifth Circuit's  Erie guess is persuasive and consistent with often-recognized authority on insurance law. See Jeffrey Jackson, Mississippi Insurance Law & Practice § 16:11, at 16-27 (2001); 12 Russ & Segalla, supra, § 169:104, at 169-188 (stating that in the event state law contains no provision for mandatory medical payments coverage in a policy of insurance, as it does for uninsured motorist protection, a clause in a policy limiting liability is not in contravention of a statute or public policy, and must be given effect.) (footnote omitted). See also Simpson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 981 P.2d 1262 (Okla.1999).