Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Voss, No. 2
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | LIVERMORE; PELANDER, P.J., and FLOREZ |
| Citation | 188 Ariz. 297,935 P.2d 875 |
| Parties | , 231 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 23 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. John VOSS and Jewell Voss, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants. 96-0204. |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CV |
Page 875
v.
John VOSS and Jewell Voss, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants.
Division 2.
Review Granted April 29, 1997.
Review Dismissed as Improvidently Granted June 27, 1997.
Page 876
[188 Ariz. 298] LIVERMORE, Judge.
John Voss was seriously injured when the car he was driving was struck by a negligent uninsured driver. Voss's car was owned by his employer and he received $15,000 uninsured benefits from his employer's carrier. Voss also was a named insured on four policies issued by plaintiff Farmers Insurance Company, each of which provided uninsured motorist coverage. Farmers paid Voss $30,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. That was the highest coverage of any of the four policies. Farmers declined to pay more because of the following anti-stacking provision contained in each of the policies:
If any applicable insurance other than this policy is issued to you by us or any other member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, the total amount payable among all such policies shall not exceed the limits provided by the single policy with the highest limits of liability.
Farmers brought this declaratory judgment action to hold the clause enforceable. Voss resisted on the ground that the clause failed to comply with the ruling in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 182 Ariz. 329, 897 P.2d 631 (1995), and that its enforcement would violate public policy and defeat his reasonable expectations as to what he purchased. Voss appeals from an adverse summary judgment. We affirm.
A.R.S. § 20-259.01(F) provides;
If multiple policies or coverages purchased by one insured on different vehicles apply to an accident or claim, the insurer may limit the coverage so that only one policy, selected by the insured, shall be applicable to any one accident.
In Lindsey, supra, our supreme court held that to prevent stacking the insurer must incorporate the provisions of the statute that permit it to do so and that it must advise the insured of the right to choose the applicable policy in the event of a claim. Voss contends that because no such advice was given here, the anti-stacking clause should be found invalid. We disagree. While selection is not offered, neither is it, as in Lindsey, foreclosed. Indeed, selection is implicitly provided by the limitation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beckler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 1 CA-CV 97-0364.
...State Farm asserts that a recent Division Two case changed the law with respect to stacking in this case. See Farmers Ins. Co. v. Voss, 188 Ariz. 297, 935 P.2d 875 (App.1996). In Voss, the court reviewed a policy clause that provided that the total amount payable under all policies could no......
-
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Veveiros, A128444
...by the policy language. (See Ariz. Rev. Stats., § 20-259.01, subd. (H); Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona v. Voss (Ariz.Ct.App. 1996) 188 Ariz. 297, 298 (Voss).) The Veveiroses filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Arizona law applied and permitted the stacking of UMC benefits......
-
Saks v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., No. CV-20-00396-PHX-DLR
...expressly authorizes insurers to forego providing UM/UIM coverage within umbrella policies. See Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Voss, 935 P.2d 875, 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996) ("When the term at issue is one specifically authorized by statute, it cannot be characterized as unusual."). ......
-
Viking Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Link, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0646
...type of exclusion, so we cannot say the exclusion is unusual or unexpected. A.R.S. § 28-4009(C)(4)(c); Farmer Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Voss, 188 Ariz. 297, 298 (App. 1996) ("When the term at issue is one specifically authorized by statute, it cannot be characterized as unusual or unexpecte......
-
Beckler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 1 CA-CV 97-0364.
...State Farm asserts that a recent Division Two case changed the law with respect to stacking in this case. See Farmers Ins. Co. v. Voss, 188 Ariz. 297, 935 P.2d 875 (App.1996). In Voss, the court reviewed a policy clause that provided that the total amount payable under all policies could no......
-
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Veveiros, A128444
...by the policy language. (See Ariz. Rev. Stats., § 20-259.01, subd. (H); Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona v. Voss (Ariz.Ct.App. 1996) 188 Ariz. 297, 298 (Voss).) The Veveiroses filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Arizona law applied and permitted the stacking of UMC benefits......
-
Saks v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., No. CV-20-00396-PHX-DLR
...expressly authorizes insurers to forego providing UM/UIM coverage within umbrella policies. See Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Voss, 935 P.2d 875, 876 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996) ("When the term at issue is one specifically authorized by statute, it cannot be characterized as unusual."). ......
-
Viking Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Link, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0646
...type of exclusion, so we cannot say the exclusion is unusual or unexpected. A.R.S. § 28-4009(C)(4)(c); Farmer Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Voss, 188 Ariz. 297, 298 (App. 1996) ("When the term at issue is one specifically authorized by statute, it cannot be characterized as unusual or unexpecte......