Aggregate or Stack Coverage
In Boatright v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., Susan Boatright was injured in a two-vehicle accident in Carbondale, when a car driven by Ramona Halliday, the at-fault driver, struck Boatright’s 2003 Chevy Astro van. Boatright suffered serious personal injuries and she incurred substantial medical bills. At the time, Boatright was paying premiums on four separate automobile insurance policies covering their family vehicles. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Aurora, Illinois, issued the Boatrights a policy for Todd and Susan Boatright, listing the 2003 Chevrolet Astro Van, a second for a 1996 Chevrolet, and a third for Todd Boatright, listing a 1999 Chevrolet. All three listed underinsured motorist coverage limits at $100,000 for each person/$300,000 for each occurrence. However, on the fourth policy, the insurance name was identified as Mid-Century Insurance Company, Los Angeles, California. Todd and Josh Boatright listed coverage for a 1995 Chevrolet Crew Cab and provided underinsured motorist coverage limits of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence, as well. Each of the insurance policies had a provision that stated “the limits provided by the policy may not be stacked or combined with the limits provided by any other policy issued to you or a family member or by any member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.” Further, the policies stated that, “if you or a family member has another policy on another vehicle issued by any member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, (a) the limits of this policy do not apply to any occurrence arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such other insured vehicle.” Boatrights filed a declaratory judgment in which they sought to establish a right to underinsured motorist coverage under their four automobile insurance policies. They asserted that their underinsured motorist coverage under the multiple policies stacked and that the at-fault driver should be classified as an underinsured vehicle; because if policies were stacked, Boatright’s four policies provided underinsured motorist coverage limits of $400,000.
The court addressed the question of whether the language of the policies allows for stacking of the four policies.
The court states that the Illinois Supreme Court has determined that anti-stacking clauses, in general, do not contravene public policy. Moreover, the Illinois Insurance Code expressly authorizes the use of anti-stacking provisions in motor vehicle insurance policies. Anti-stacking provisions are unenforceable when the language employed is unclear or ambiguous. The anti-stacking language in the policies stated: “The limits provided by this policy may not be stacked or combined with the limits provided by any other policy issued to you or a family member by any member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.” “[A]ny member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies” was not defined in the policies. Despite the ease of which to do so, neither “Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Aurora, Illinois,” nor “Mid-Century Insurance Company, Los Angeles, California,” was identified in the policy as a “member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.” Accordingly, because this exclusionary language of the policy is susceptible to more than one meaning, it is ambiguous and should, therefore, be liberally construed for Boatrights. The anti-stacking clause’s application is tied by its own language to the insurance being issued by a member company of a specific insurance group, but the named insurer on the declarations page cannot be determined by policy language to be a member of that group. Because of the unclear language employed in the contracts of insurance, there is doubt or uncertainty as to its meaning, and it is fairly susceptible of two interpretations. Accordingly, the language is ambiguous, and the exclusionary “limits of coverage” anti-stacking language in the policies does not apply to deny the plaintiffs’ coverage. Therefore, the plaintiffs may aggregate the $400,000 of underinsured coverage available under the four policies in effect at the time of the collision.
The court held that, due to ambiguity in insurance policies, the underinsured coverage limits of the plaintiffs’ four insurance policies aggregate, or stack, to exceed each policy’s underinsured motorist coverage limit.
Boatright v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. 2013 WL 3776817 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.) (This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1)).
