Opinion ID: 2286079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Predicate UIM Stacking Prohibited

Text: The issue of first impression presented to this Court is whether it is permissible to stack multiple UIM coverages for the threshold purpose of establishing whether the tortfeasor is an underinsured motorist. Section 3902(b)(2) authorizes the stacking of total liability coverage under all bonds and insurance policies.  [14] The amount of that combined liability coverage is then compared to the amount of UIM coverage stated in the declaration sheet of the policy.  [15] Thus, in order to determine whether a tortfeasor is underinsured the statute requires that a comparison be made between the total of all liability insurance policies available on behalf of the tortfeasor and the limits of each particular underinsured motorist policy that the policyholder is attempting to access. The plaintiffs argue that the term the declaration sheet of the policy refers to all underinsured policies that are potentially applicable. [16] The General Assembly, however, used the plural term policies to describe the liability coverage that is to be considered but simultaneously used the singular term policy to characterize the underinsurance coverage to which the liability coverage was to be compared. Moreover, with regard to bodily injury liability coverage, the statute uses not only the plural policies, but also employs the words all and total to indicate that liability coverage must be considered in the aggregate. The omission of the terms all and total in reference to UIM coverage, in conjunction with the use of the singular word policy, reflects a concerted decision by the legislature to have each underinsured motorist policy considered separately vis-à-vis all liability policies. It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that the General Assembly is presumed to have inserted every provision into a legislative enactment for some useful purpose and construction, and when different terms are used in various parts of a statute, it is reasonable to assume that a distinction between the terms was intended. [17] The unambiguous language of the statute demonstrates that term the declaration sheet of the policy in Section 3902(b)(2) refers to each single UIM policy under consideration. Accordingly, we hold that the Delaware statute precludes the stacking of UIM coverages for purposes of the threshold inquiry into whether the underinsured motorist coverage provided by any one UIM policy is triggered.