Opinion ID: 1116146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Legislative Deference

Text: Considering the applicable rules of stacking, as well as our determination that stacking is a positive gloss of our UM statute, we must hold that the trial court was correct in allowing the stacking of coverage in this case. In so holding, we recognize that our statutory scheme does not distinguish a commercial fleet policy from any other type of auto insurance policy nor is it defined therein. Furthermore, this Court has not discovered a single jurisprudential definition of commercial fleet policy. Of primary importance is the fact that a proposal which would prohibit the stacking of insurance policies was recently rejected through our legislative process. Out of deference to the authority of our legislature, we can not modify the Uninsured Motorists Coverage Act by imposing a jurisprudential definition upon the scheme. Unlike other jurisdictions, such as Alabama, Minnesota and Montana [2] , which have legislatively mandated that stacking is contrary to public policy, stacking is retained in Mississippi as a positive gloss of our UM statute. In Mississippi, we have no statutory basis for distinguishing a commercial fleet policy. The legislature has not seen fit to overrule our stacking decisions nor do we choose to do so today. We hold that the lower court decision to allow stacking was correct.