Opinion ID: 1791075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: is a permissive user considered a class i insured giving him the right to stack?

Text: ¶ 15. Glennon and Lashley alternatively contend that their status as employees should entitle them to Class I status for UM coverage. In a recent case, this Court stated that the owner of a closely held corporation is not a Class I insured where only the corporation is listed as the named insured on the insurance policy. Steinwinder v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 742 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Miss.1999). In Harris v. Magee , a case relied upon by the dissent, this Court had previously resolved this issue. The employee [2] in Harris had contended that he was a named insured and therefore, for purposes of UM coverage, a Class I insured. Harris, 573 So.2d at 656. This Court rejected that argument stating that a Class II insured is any person who uses, with the consent, expressed or implied, of the named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies. Id. Since the employee was not named on the policy, he was a Class II insured. Id. ¶ 16. In the case sub judice, neither Glennon nor Lashley is a named insured on any of Rent-A-Maid's insurance policies, thus they can only be considered Class II insureds. Therefore this issue is without merit.