Government Employees Insurance v. Steve Sayre, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Sayre
239 W. Va. 300
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- Robert Keith Sayre died in a two-vehicle crash in which both other drivers were found to be underinsured; the decedent was covered by two policies: GEICO and 21st Century, each insuring two of Mr. Sayre’s vehicles and each including UIM endorsements and multi-car discounts.
- GEICO had tendered $20,000 (per-person UIM limit) and the estate sought an additional $20,000 from GEICO, arguing two underinsured tortfeasors triggered UIM twice (aggregate $40,000).
- GEICO filed a declaratory judgment action; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the estate, ordering GEICO to pay an additional $20,000 (total $40,000) based on its reading of the policy’s “limits apply separately to each auto” clause.
- GEICO appealed, arguing the policy’s express anti-stacking language ("regardless of the number of autos… the Underinsured Motorists Bodily Injury Liability limit for ‘each person’… is the maximum we will pay") limits recovery to the single $20,000 per-person endorsement it sold.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the policy language was ambiguous and whether anti-stacking was enforceable where a single policy (with multi-car discount) covers multiple vehicles.
- The Court reversed the circuit court, holding GEICO’s per-person limit was the maximum payable and anti-stacking was enforceable under the policy and controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple underinsured tortfeasors permit stacking of UIM under a single multi-car policy | Estate: two underinsured motorists each trigger the $20,000 per-person UIM limit, so GEICO owes $40,000 | GEICO: policy unambiguously caps UIM at $20,000 per person “regardless of the number of autos”; anti-stacking applies | Held for GEICO: UIM limited to $20,000 per person; multiple tortfeasors do not multiply coverage under a single policy with anti-stacking language |
| Whether the policy language is ambiguous as to UIM limits | Estate: language ambiguous because it lacks an express limit tied to number of tortfeasors | GEICO: clear limiting clause (“maximum we will pay for bodily injury… regardless of the number of autos”) is unambiguous | Held for GEICO: language unambiguous; circuit court erred in finding ambiguity |
| Effect of “limits apply separately to each auto” clause | Estate: that clause allows separate per-auto application to each underinsured motorist, effectively doubling UIM | GEICO: clause ensures each insured vehicle has its own allocation if that insured vehicle is involved; it does not permit stacking when insured was not in his vehicle | Held for GEICO: clause does not multiply UIM for multiple tortfeasors and was inapplicable here because insured’s vehicles were not involved |
| Whether multi-car discount/ single-policy purchase affects stacking | Estate: not dispositive to deny stacking here | GEICO: multi-car discount and single-policy endorsement mean insured purchased one UIM endorsement—anti-stacking is allowed | Held for GEICO: multi-car discount and single policy support enforceability of anti-stacking; insured bought one UIM endorsement only |
Key Cases Cited
- Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 175 W.Va. 337, 332 S.E.2d 639 (W. Va. 1985) (upheld limitation of liability clauses that prevent stacking across covered vehicles)
- Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 188 W.Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (W. Va. 1992) (anti-stacking enforceable where single policy/underinsured endorsement covers multiple vehicles)
- Payne v. Weston, 195 W.Va. 502, 466 S.E.2d 161 (W. Va. 1995) (policy language plainly limiting 'each person' coverage prevails over stacking arguments)
- Miller v. Lemon, 194 W.Va. 129, 459 S.E.2d 406 (W. Va. 1995) (anti-stacking valid where insured purchased single policy for multiple vehicles and received multi-car discount)
- Linkinoggor v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 200 W.Va. 265, 489 S.E.2d 19 (W. Va. 1997) (rejected attempt to stack UIM where policy unambiguously limited payments despite insuring multiple vehicles)
- Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 153 W.Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (W. Va. 1970) (clear and unambiguous insurance provisions are enforced as written)