 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pallay v. Nationwide Insurance Co.10/31/2005
if the insured paid separate premiums for the separate coverages. According to Savoie, the payment of separate premiums meant that coverages could be stacked, one on top of the other, even if the policy contained anti-stacking language.
{ } When the legislature revised R.C. §3937.18 in 1994, as part of Am.Sub.S.B. 20, effective October 20, 1994, it included the following instructive notes as part of the statute:
{ } "Section 9. It is the intent of the General Assembly in amending division (G) of section 3937.18 of the Revised Code to supersede the effect of the holding of the Ohio Supreme Court in its October 1, 1993 decision in Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 500, relative to the stacking of insurance coverages, and to declare and confirm that the purpose and intent of the 114th General Assembly in enacting division (G) of section 3937.18 in Am. H.B. 489 was, and the intent of the General Assembly in amending section 3937.18 of the Revised Code in this act is, to permit any motor vehicle insurance policy that includes uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage to include terms and conditions to preclude any and all stacking of such coverages, including interfamily and intrafamily stacking."
{ } The anti-stacking provision, R.C. §3937.18(G), reads as follows:
{ } "(G) Any automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance that includes coverages offered under division (A) of this section or selected in accordance with division (C) of this section may, without regard to any premiums involved, include terms and conditions that preclude any and all stacking of such coverages, including but not limited to:
{ } "(1) Interfamily stacking, which is the aggregating of the limits of such coverages by the same person or two or more persons, whether family members or not, who are not members of the same household;
{ } "(2) Intrafamily stacking, which is the aggregating of the limits of such coverages purchased by the same person or two or more family members of the same household." (Emphasis added.)
{ } Although the legislative notes to Am.Sub.S.B. 20 do not specifically say that intrapolicy anti-stacking provisions will be permissible, it is clear from the "including but not limited to" language, and from the legislature's sharp rejection of the Savoie decision, that intrapolicy anti-stacking in an auto insurance policy would be permitted under the revised statute.
{ } Then, in the revisions to R.C. §3937.18 that occurred in Am.Sub.H.B. 261, effective Sept. 3, 1997, the following language was added to the statute:
{ } "(K) As used in this section, 'uninsured motor vehicle' and 'underinsured motor vehicle' do not include any of the following motor vehicles:
{ } "(1) A motor vehicle that has applicable liability coverage in the policy under which the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages are provided;"
{ } This new provision not only allows for an auto insurance policy to include intrapolicy anti-stacking, it appears to require such language. Pursuant to the statute, if a policy provides liability coverage for an automobile, it cannot also provide UM/UIM coverage for that same vehicle. The parties appear to agree that the Am.Sub.H.B. 261 version of the statute is the one that applies to the instant case.
{ } Appellee has not presented any caselaw or theory that would prohibit Nationwide from enforcing its intrapolicy anti-stacking clause or that would contradict the effect of R.C. §3937.18(K)(1). Thus, Appellee is barred from recovery because he has already received the $100,000 benefit limit from th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|