Court Opinion

ID: 9669081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:39:03.855495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:52.089717
License: Public Domain

SPAIN, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. The basic issue in these two cases is the same as that decided in Allstate Insurance Company v. Janet Dicke, also rendered this day and from which I also dissented. I feel in these cases, as I did in Allstate v. Dicke, that there is no public policy in Kentucky as recognized or enunciated by the General Assembly prohibiting an insurance company from writing an anti-stacking provision in an automobile insurance policy regarding coverages other *327than uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The Majority in these cases and in Allstate v. Dicke holds, however, that the same public policy announced in Meridian Mutual Insurance Company v. Siddons, Ky., 451 S.W.2d 881 (1970), and its progeny with regard to UM coverage should apply with equal force to underinsured motorist coverage and added reparation benefits (added RB) coverage. In both of the cases at hand, the appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, had issued policies of automobile insurance including added reparation benefits over and above the basic reparation benefits mandated by KRS 304.39-050. The policies all state:
Subject to items 1 and 2, if any no-fault coverage applies, the total limit of liability under all such policies shall not exceed that of the policy of the highest limit of liability ...
Notwithstanding this limitation on liability, the Majority now holds that the insureds may recover added reparation benefits equal to the total of all policy limits added together. In other words, the Thomas family could recover up to $60,000 in added RB because they had a policy on each of three cars in the family providing up to $20,000 each. Similarly, the Mattoxes would be entitled to $40,000 in added RB because they had policies on two vehicles. I simply cannot accept the premise of the Majority that these families had a “reasonable expectation” that this could ever happen.
The language of KRS 304.39-140-(2) provides that:
Each basic reparation obligor shall be permitted to incorporate in added reparation benefits coverage such terms, conditions and exclusions as may be consistent with premiums charged ...
I do not read in this provision any legislative pronouncement of public policy mandating the inclusion of added RB coverage. On the contrary, I read the language as clearly providing that the insurer and insured can reach agreement on this as in any other contract. If this is so, then there is no doubt in my mind that State Farm was free to prohibit stacking of added RB coverages.
I would reverse the lower courts and direct that the policy provisions agreed to by the parties be upheld.
STEPHENS, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion.