 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Proctor v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.1/28/1994
ng requires the same result in the instant case involving statutorily mandated UIM insurance under the 1983 version of N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4). We have carefully examined the 1983 version of subdivision (b)(4) and we do not find any language mandating intrapolicy stacking of UIM coverages. In fact, the 1983 version of subdivision (b)(4), like the 1985 version of subdivision (b)(3) examined in Lanning, is silent on the issue of stacking. Subdivision (b)(4) provides that "the provisions of subdivision (3) of this subsection shall apply to the coverage required by this subdivision." However, subdivision (3) of subsection (b) of the 1983 version of N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21, like the 1985 version of subdivision (b)(3) at issue in Lanning, is also silent on the issue of stacking. Consistent with the rationale of Lanning, we now hold that the 1983 version of subdivision (b)(4) did not require that the UIM coverages in the same policy be aggregated or stacked.
Additionally, as in Lanning, we have examined the nature and language of the Proctor policy and we find no language which entitles plaintiff to aggregate or stack the UIM coverages in the same policy. "Part C - Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage" of the Proctor policy amends "Part C - Uninsured Motorists Coverage" by adding a provision which includes an underinsured vehicle under the definition of "Uninsured Motor Vehicle." Thus, absent other controlling language in the UM/UIM section of the Proctor policy, the "Limit of Liability" provision in "Part C - Uninsured Motorists Coverage" of the policy is applicable and, in the instant case, controlling. That provision is as follows: "The limit of bodily injury liability shown in the Declarations for 'each person' for Uninsured Motorists Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one accident." While the amount shown in the Declarations for UM coverage for each person for bodily injury in the Proctor policy is $25,000, the amount shown in the Declarations for purposes of UIM coverage is effectively amended to $100,000 by virtue of our decision in Proctor I. 324 N.C. 221, 226, 376 S.E.2d 761, 764. Thus, $100,000 is the maximum limit of liability of UIM coverage under the Proctor policy for all damages for bodily injury sustained by Mrs. Proctor in the accident in question.
For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that neither the 1983 version of subdivision (b)(4) of N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21 nor the language in the Proctor policy entitles plaintiff to aggregate or stack the UIM coverages on the three vehicles insured in the Proctor policy. Therefore, plaintiff's total UIM coverage under the Proctor policy is limited to $100,000. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals as to intrapolicy stacking is reversed.
The decision of the Court of Appeals as to interpolicy stacking is affirmed without precedential value by an equally divided Court.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
JUSTICE PARKER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Disposition
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|