Opinion ID: 884678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stacking of auto medical payments coverages

Text: ¶ 48 Having determined that Holeman may stack the underinsured motorist coverages contained in the Farmers Alliance policy, we must next determine whether she is similarly entitled to stack the policy's auto medical payments coverages. ¶ 49 In support of its argument against stacking, Farmers Alliance points to that portion of the auto medical payment coverage endorsement which provides as follows: D. LIMIT OF INSURANCE. 1. Regardless of the number of covered autos, insureds, premiums paid, claims made or vehicles involved in the accident, the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one accident is the LIMIT OF INSURANCE for [AUTO MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE] [7] shown in the Declarations. ¶ 50 As it did in support of its argument against the stacking of underinsured motorist coverages, Farmers Alliance argues the policy itself expressly precludes an insured from stacking auto medical payment coverages. Farmers Alliance also relies on cases from other jurisdictions in which various courts have upheld similar policy provisions in the absence of a statutory mandate that insurers provide coverage for medical expenses. See, e.g., Lemoi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (R.I. 1982), 453 A.2d 758; Pettid v. Edwards (1976), 195 Neb. 713, 240 N.W.2d 344. ¶ 51 In light of our recent decision in the case of Ruckdaschel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Mont.1997), 285 Mont. 395, 948 P.2d 700, we conclude otherwise, and hold that Holeman is entitled to stack the auto medical payment coverages contained within the Farmers Alliance policy at issue in this case. In Ruckdaschel, a plaintiff was walking when she was struck and injured by a vehicle. Ruckdaschel, 285 Mont. at 396, 948 P.2d at 701. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff had three separate medical payments policies issued by State Farm, for which she and her husband had paid separate premiums. Ruckdaschel, 285 Mont. at 396, 948 P.2d at 701. ¶ 52 Relying on our decision in Bennett, and the public policy articulated within, we held that State Farm could not rely on the language of its amendatory endorsement to deny coverage under each policy when it received a separate premium for each policy. Ruckdaschel, 285 Mont. at 397, 948 P.2d at 702. We again upheld and applied the public policy that an insurer may not place in an insurance policy a provision that defeats coverage for which the insurer has received valuable consideration. Ruckdaschel, 285 Mont. at 398, 948 P.2d at 702. We concluded the District Court did not err when it held that the public policy concerns which apply in statutorily required insurance coverage contexts also apply to optional types of insurance coverage such as, in this case, medical payment coverage. Ruckdaschel, 285 Mont. at 399, 948 P.2d at 703. ¶ 53 In the present case, we similarly conclude that, in light of Montana's public policy, and because Farmers Alliance received separate premiums for each vehicle insured under the policy at issue, it cannot now rely on the policy's exclusionary language to deny coverage. ¶ 54 Based on the foregoing analysis, we answer the second certified question in the affirmative, and conclude that the underinsured motorist coverages and auto medical payments coverages may be stacked under the Farmers Alliance policy at issue in this case, where multiple vehicles are insured under one policy and where a premium is charged for coverage of each motor vehicle listed within the policy. TURNAGE, C.J., and HUNT, NELSON, TRIEWEILER and LEAPHART, JJ., concur.