Couch v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 08-389
A young lady was killed while a passenger in a one-vehicle accident. Her family received $20,000 from the insurance carrier of the vehicle involved in the accident and $50,000 in underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits from Farmers. Her family then sued Farmers for $150,000 in UIM benefits from three other Farmers policies. Farmers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policies contained clear and unambiguous anti-stacking clauses. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment.
On appeal, the family argued, among other things, that the anti-stacking provisions at issue were in derogation of Ark. Code Ann. 23-89-209. This statute requires insurance carriers to offer UIM coverage, but allows an insured the option to reject such coverage. The Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed with the family’s argument, noting that nothing in the anti-stacking provisions violated Ark. Code Ann. 23-89-209. The court further stated that a policy exclusion such as an anti-stacking provision does not violate public policy because the insured can reject coverage.
[...] Vote Arkansas Supreme Court holds that anti-stacking provisions do not violate … [...]