Opinion ID: 1631268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Stacking v. Other Insurance Clauses

Text: ¶ 7. Britt and the trial court characterize the three policies as ambiguous when the limitation of liability section (Medical payment limits shall not stack.) is read with the other insurance sections. In so doing, the trial court ruled in favor of Britt because [a]ny ambiguities in an insurance contract must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured and a finding of coverage. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658, 662 (Miss.1994). See also Lewis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 730 So.2d 65, 68 (Miss.1998); Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 697 So.2d 400, 403 (Miss.1997). ¶ 8. To determine whether Britt is correct in his argument that the policies were ambiguous, we must first distinguish the concept of stacking from the operation of other insurance clauses: The basic difference between the concept of stacking and the operation of other insurance clauses can be simply stated as: other insurance clauses address rules for determining responsibility if more than one coverage is considered to apply, while stacking addresses whether more than one coverage which would otherwise be applicable should, in fact, be applied at all. As such, the other insurance clauses should only come into play after the determination of whether the insured has the right to stack coverages at all. 12 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 169:9, at 169-23 (3d ed.1998) (footnote omitted & emphasis added). In the instant case, it is undisputed that the four Farm Bureau policies had medical payment provisions for the injuries Britt sustained. However, our inquiry does not concern determining responsibility inasmuch as it concerns whether any or all of the four policies should be applied in the first place. As such, reliance on the other insurance clauses prior to determining whether a right to stack existed was premature. ¶ 9. The Court of Appeals of Utah discussed this issue in Goetz v. American Reliable Ins. Co., 844 P.2d 366 (Utah Ct. App.1992). [2] In Goetz, the insured was injured when the vehicle he was driving collided with a moose. Id. at 367. The vehicle was owned by a friend and insured by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). Goetz received the medical payment benefits under the GEICO policy and thereafter made a claim on his insurer, American Reliable, for the medical payment benefits under that policy. Id. American Reliable refused payment on the ground that the policy specifically prohibited stacking of no-fault medical payment benefits. [3] Id. at 368. The trial court granted summary judgment to American Reliable on the ground that Goetz could not stack medical payment benefits under the GEICO policy and his American Reliable policy. Id. He appealed and asserted, inter alia, that the provisions of the American Reliable policy were ambiguous and should be construed in his favor. The Court of Appeals of Utah agreed that American Reliable's other insurance clause was ambiguous when viewed in isolation but concluded: This [other insurance] provision is, however, even under appellant's view, a limitation on coverage rather than an expression of coverage. In other words, it sets forth a rule to be used in determining responsibility if more than one policy applies, but is entirely unilluminating in deciding the question of whether more than one policy applies. Thus, any ambiguity in the first paragraph of the other insurance provision of American Reliable's PIP endorsement is irrelevant in determining whether appellant may claim benefits [ (i.e., stack) ] under American Reliable's policy as well as GEICO's. Id. at 370 (emphasis in original). The point is that any possible ambiguity in an other insurance clause has no bearing on the preliminary determination of whether medical payment benefits in multiple policies can be stacked.