410_C234
CAN
ACCIDENT VICTIM COLLECT TWO SETS OF UM BENEFITS?
|
Personal
Automobile |
Theft |
|
Voluntary
Parting |
|
In
July 2009, Sarah Stott was seriously injured in a head-on collision caused by
Steven Poppie. Poppie’s vehicle was insured under a policy that provided
liability limits of $20,000 per person. Stott’s vehicle was insured under a
Peerless Insurance Company policy that included underinsured motorist coverage
of $100,000 per person. At the time of the accident, Stott lived with her
parents, whose vehicles were insured under a separate policy, also issued by
Peerless. Although Stott’s vehicle was not covered under her parents’ policy, it
extended coverage to resident relatives living in their home and provided
underinsured motorist benefits of $250,000 per person.
Stott
received $20,000 from Poppie’s insurer and $80,000 under her Peerless policy.
She then filed an action seeking to recover underinsured motorist benefits
under her parents’ policy.
Peerless
argued that coverage under the parents’ policy was precluded by the policy
terms and by statute. The trial court agreed with Peerless; Stott appealed.
On
appeal, Stott argued that because she was an insured under two separate and
distinct policies, for which two separate premiums were paid, she should
receive the “benefit of the premium for which she paid.”
The
Appellate Court of Connecticut disagreed. The court noted that the purpose of
underinsured motorist coverage is to provide an insured the same resources he
or she would have had if the at-fault driver had liability insurance equal to
the amount of the insured’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. The court
also noted that Connecticut’s anti-stacking legislation provided, in relevant
part: ”If any person insured for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage
is an occupant of an owned vehicle, the uninsured and underinsured motorist
coverage afforded by the policy covering the vehicle occupied at the time of
the accident shall be the only uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage available.”
Stott’s
policy was the only policy covering her vehicle at the time of the accident.
Her car was not insured under her parents’ policy. She was covered as a
resident family member. She received the full benefit provided for her under
the policy that covered her vehicle. The court concluded that the anti-stacking
provision precluded coverage under Stott’s parents’ policy because allowing it
would “render superfluous much of the statutory prohibition against stacking.”
The
judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
Stott
vs. Peerless Insurance Company-No. 33565-Appellate Court of Connecticut-August
7, 2012-47 Atlantic Reporter 3rd 965