State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Schatken, 230 W. Va. 201

On December 19, 2008, the Schatkens were injured in an accident involving a driver with $25,000 liability coverage.
The Schatkens were State Farm insured, with $5,000 medical payments and $250,000 underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.
Nationwide tendered the liability limits, State Farm consented and waived subrogation; Schatkens used $5,000 medical payments for Jill's bills.
The Schatkens sued State Farm and its adjusters seeking declaratory relief that State Farm's non-duplication provision violated W. Va. Code § 33-6-31(b).
The circuit court granted partial summary judgment on the non-duplication provision but also later ruled on a reimbursement provision, which State Farm argued was not originally pleaded.
The circuit court held both the non-duplication and reimbursement provisions violated § 33-6-31(b); State Farm appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Non-duplication provision validity under § 33-6-31(b)	Schatkens: provision reduces damages (offsets) and violates no sums payable.	State Farm: provision serves to prevent double recovery and aligns with Youler.	Non-duplication does not violate no sums payable.
Ripe/justiciable status of reimbursement provision	Reimbursement clause is at issue due to State Farm’s brief and a 2009 letter.	Provision was not pleaded; issue not ripe for adjudication.	Reimbursement provision is not ripe; court erred in addressing it.

State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Youler, 183 W.Va. 556 (1990) (offset against damages, not against UM coverage; supports double-recovery offset approach)
Cunningham v. Hill, 226 W.Va. 180 (2010) (no sums payable prohibits reducing UM coverage when duplicative payments exist)
Ferrell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 217 W.Va. 243 (2005) (medical payments purpose and interaction with UM/underinsured coverage)
Welborn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2007) (discussion of offsets and coverage stacking in UM context)