Anti-Stacking Provision Upheld Unless it is Ambiguous

Plaintiffs (adult children and administrator of the estate of Albert Abram and Cheryl Hanson) appealed an order dismissing their declaratory judgment action against the defendant, United States Automobile Association (“USAA”), and denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. Trial court held plaintiffs could not stack or combine coverage under the policy to receive more coverage after they were both killed in an automobile accident with an uninsured driver.  Trial court also held that the Abrams’ $2 million personal umbrella policy (“PUP”) did not provide uninsured motorist coverage (“UM”). Therefore, plaintiffs’ recovery was limited to $500,000 per accident under their UM policy.  Defendant has already paid the $500,000.  Appellate Court affirms.

The Abrams were killed in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist while driving their GMC Envoy (“GMC”).  They were covered under their current policy for two vehicles, a GMC and a 1991 BMW.  The GMC and BMW had different coverage specifications. More specifically, the BMW did not carry UM coverage. Plaintiffs contend that anti-stacking provisions do not apply when two persons covered under one policy are killed in the same accident; this contention was not upheld. The appellate court held that the policy was unambiguous.  Therefore, the plaintiffs are precluded from stacking UM coverage.

Despite an instance where a plaintiff has paid two separate premiums for UM coverage for separate automobiles, an anti-stacking clause remains enforceable unless it is ambiguous. Further, the Abrams did not pay a separate premium for UM coverage on the BMW.  They also carried a personal umbrella policy limited to $2 million per occurrence, but this policy did not include UM coverage. The trial court held that the Abrams could not recover under the PUP because it did not provide UM coverage, and that the PUP only covers amounts the insured becomes obligated to pay.

Abram v. United Services Auto. Association, 395 Ill.App.3d 700 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2009).