Parish v. United Financial Casualty
278 P.3d 1015
Mont.2012Background
- Parishes were insured by UFC May 2007–Sept 2008, with fluctuating number of covered vehicles.
- UM premium was $73 (May 2007–May 2008) then $82 upon renewal; policy stated $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident and non-stackable limits.
- Endorsement stated the policy limits for UM would not be increased by stacking across vehicles; MP could be stacked though for separate premiums.
- After a December 31, 2007 accident with uninsured driver, UFC paid $60,000 to each Parishes (MP $10k + UM $50k); Chris’s damages were within $60k, Cassadie’s exceeded it.
- Parishes claimed they could stack UM benefits for two vehicles; UFC denied stacking and sued for declaratory judgment; district court granted UFC summary judgment.
- Montana’s 2007 amendments to § 33-23-203(1), and related advisory memorandum, framed the stacking issue; Parishes argued retroactivity and ambiguity, UFC argued compliance with the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 33-23-203(1) bars stacking when premiums reflect separate coverage | Parishes: retroactivity and ambiguity support stacking | UFC: statute and rates filed show no stacking | Yes, no stacking under statute as applied |
| Whether UFC properly filed premium rates with the Commissioner | Parishes: filing after policy issue retroactive | UFC filed rate documents in 2006 and 2007 confirming non-stacking | UFC complied; no retroactive effect under law |
| Whether the policy language is unambiguous in prohibiting stacking | Parishes: policy ambiguity and reasonable expectations for stacking | Policy clearly prohibits UM stacking | Policy not ambiguous; stacking not allowed |
| Whether Parishes reasonably expected stacked UM given separate premiums for MP/vehicles | Parishes paid separate MP for each vehicle; UM stacking should follow | UM premiums were not separate per vehicle; no stacking allowed | No reasonable expectation of stacking under policy terms |
| Whether the district court erred by admitting certain affidavits | Parishes: affidavits inadmissible or irrelevant | Affidavits relevant to UM premium structure | No reversible error; affidavits properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 315 Mont. 107 (2003 MT 85) (anti-stacking where separate premiums for each vehicle charged; public policy)
- Bennett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Mont. 386 (1993 MT 21) (stacking when separate premiums charged for UM across vehicles)
- Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 337 Mont. 509 (2007 MT 153) (public policy on stacking when separate premiums charged)
- Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 304 Mont. 356 (2001 MT 59) (reasonable expectations not supported by clear exclusions)
- Dakota Fire Ins. Co. v. Oie, 291 Mont. 486 (1998 MT 288) (contract interpretation in ordinary terms)
- Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 869 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1989) (policy language on stacking and declarations page guidance)