Richardson v. Allstate Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1980
• Docket Number: No. 55465,55465
• Citation: 1980 OK 157,619 P.2d 594
• Parties: Sharron K. RICHARDSON and Timothy Charles Richardson, minors, by and through their parents and best friends, Charles Richardson and Neta Sue Richardson, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 594

619 P.2d 594

1980 OK 157

Sharron K. RICHARDSON and Timothy Charles Richardson,

minors, by and through their parents and best

friends, Charles Richardson and Neta Sue

Richardson, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant.

No. 55465.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 21, 1980.

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Arthur S. Bay, Bay, Hamilton, Lees, Spears & Verity, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs.

Rex K. Travis, Benefield, Travis, Russell & Freede, Oklahoma City, for defendant.

IRWIN, Vice Chief Justice.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified the following question pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, 20 O.S.Supp.1979, § 1601 et seq.: May uninsured motorist insurance coverage of $25,000.00 for each person injured in an accident, not to exceed $50,000.00 in any one accident, provided by a single automobile liability insurance policy covering three vehicles, be "stacked" or aggregated to provide limits of $75,000.00 and $150,000.00 respectively?

Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) issued an automobile insurance policy to Charles Richardson which was in full force and effect on February 16, 1979. On that date, Richardson, his wife, and their two minor children, were occupants of one of the three vehicles insured under the policy. The Richardson vehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle operated by one Larry A. Ledgerwood. The accident was caused by negligence on the part of Ledgerwood.

The Richardsons sustained aggregate damages equal to or exceeding $150,000.00. Ledgerwood was insured by a liability insurance policy providing limits for bodily injury to any one person in the amount of $5,000.00 and for bodily injury to all persons injured in one accident in the amount of $10,000.00. Allstate paid Richardsons $40,000.00 representing its $50,000.00 single vehicle limit less the $10,000.00 covered by Ledgerwood's policy.

According to the policy, Mr. Richardson paid a total premium of $225.50, itemized as follows:

                Coverage Description        73-Fury  77-Chev.  73-Camaro
                AA & BB Bodily Injury &amp
                   Property Damage Liab.    $42.00   $37.00    $41.00
                SS Uninsured Motorists      $ 4.50   $ 4.50    $ 4.50
                CC Auto Medical Payments    $ 5.00   $ 5.00    $ 5.00
                DD Auto Collision                    $26.00    $21.00
                HH Auto Comprehensive                $18.00    $12.00
                   Totals for each Vehicle
                                   Account  $51.50   $90.50    $83.50
                   Good Driver Rate
                    Applied                 Yes      Yes       Yes
                   Multiple Car Discount    Yes      Yes       Yes
                

                   The three vehicles were listed as vehicle No. 1, 2 & 3
                and the typed in portion of the policy reads
                         AA      Bodily Injury Liability
                  1 2 3          $25,000 each person - $50,000 each occurrence
                         BB      Property Damage liability
                  1 2 3                               $25,000 each occurrence
                         SS      Uninsured Motorists
                                 Bodily Injury
                  1 2 3          $25,000 each person - $50,000 each accident
                         CC      Automobile Medical Payments
                  1 2 3          $2,000 each person
                    2 3  DD      Automobile Collision - Acutual Cash Value
                    2 3          Less Deductible of $100.00 each occurrence
                    2 3  HH      Automobile Comprehensive - Acutal Cash Value
                

It is clear that had Allstate issued three separate policies to Richardson to insure the above described vehicles, instead of a single multivehicle policy, the question of stacking uninsured motorist insurance coverage would be determined by our decision in Keel v. MFA Insurance Company, Okl., 553 P.2d 153 (1976). In that case Keel was injured by an uninsured motorist. As Keel's insurer, MFA had issued two separate liability insurance policies containing uninsured motorist endorsements, each of which had liability limits of $10,000.00 if the accident involved only one person. Keel brought an action against MFA to enforce its alleged liability under the two uninsured motorist endorsements and received a judgment of $11,500.00. MFA challenged the "stacking" of coverage on the basis of an "other insurance" clause contained in the policies, which purported to limit the insured's coverage to the greatest applicable sum recoverable under any one policy.

We held the "other insurance" clauses involved in Keel to be contrary to public policy, repugnant to our uninsured motorist statute, ¹ and void for the following reasons:

"(1) The uninsured motorist statute requires that each liability policy must provide uninsured motorist coverage, unless the insured rejects it in writing.

(2) The statute provides for a minimum for uninsured motorist coverage, but allows the insured to purchase additional coverage if desired.

(3) The appellee (Keel) has paid, and the appellant (MFA) collected, separate premiums for each uninsured motorist coverage."

The Richardsons contend that the rationale of Keel is applicable in the present case because:

(1) The uninsured motorist statute requires that the minimum statutorily required amounts of uninsured motorist insurance coverage must be provided each vehicle listed in the policy.

(2) The separate premiums paid on a second and subsequent vehicles provide additional (coextensive in scope) uninsured motorist coverage.

(3) It would be manifestly unjust to permit the insurer to void its statutorily imposed liability by its assertion of "limits of liability" clauses which would deny the insured that for which he has paid a premium.

Allstate argues that the uninsured motorist statute requires only that each policy provide uninsured motorist coverage and does not require coverage as to each vehicle. It also contends that, as to the additional premiums charged for the second and subsequent vehicles, ² the consideration for the second and subsequent premiums is the increased risk of insuring the additional vehicles together with passengers in those vehicles.

The question here is not whether the statute requires per policy or per vehicle coverage or whether Allstate could have limited its liability to $50,000.00 for a single accident, but what was the Richardsons' insurance coverage under the policy when considered in connection with our uninsured motorist statute. Richardson, his wife, and two minor children were insureds under it and would have had uninsured motorist coverage even while in a vehicle other than an insured vehicle covered by the policy. Cothren v. Emcasco Insurance Company, Okl., 555 P.2d 1037 (1976). This broad coverage, unrelated to specific vehicles, comports with the policy of indemnification underlying § 3636.

The courts are divided on whether stacking of uninsured motorist coverage will be allowed in a single multivehicle policy. Some of the decisions not allowing such stacking include Castle v. United Pacific Insurance Group, 252 Or. 44, 448 P.2d 357 (1970); American Liberty Insurance Company v. Ranzau, 481 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.1972); Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. Tucker, 512 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.1974). Some of the cases which allow stacking are Federated American Ins. Co. v. Raynes, 88 Wash.2d 439, 563 P.2d 815, 820 (1977) and Chaffee v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 591 P.2d 1102 (Mont.1979); Curran v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 393 F.Supp. 712 (D. Alaska, 1975).

In Federated American Ins. Co. v. Raynes, supra, the Supreme Court of Washington, citing several cases allowing stacking, said:

"We need not rule on whether the separability provision requires the combining of uninsured motorist coverages (because of ambiguity, resolved in insured's favor, arising from that provision considered with the limits-of-liability provision), for we believe the limits-of-liability provision conflicts with the statutory policy of providing uninsured motorist coverage.

Respondent paid two premiums for uninsured motorist coverage and is entitled to the full protection which he has purchased. The form of protection should not control the limits of FAI's liability. If respondent had insured his two cars under two separate policies with FAI and paid uninsured motorist premiums for each car, he would be entitled to $30,000 in uninsured motorist coverage from FAI. See Cammel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 86 Wash.2d 264, 543 P.2d 634 (1975). We do not believe the result should be different simply because his two cars are insured under one single policy. In either case, he has paid two premiums for uninsured motorist coverage and is entitled to $30,000 in coverage. See Tucker v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 288 So.2d 238 (Fla.1973); Sturdy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 203 Kan....