Yeager v. State
1 CA-CV 15-0855
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- Jo Ann Yeager was injured as a passenger in a two-vehicle collision; two drivers (her husband Robert and Keith Wimbley) were alleged negligent parties.
- The Yeagers held four State Farm automobile policies (each $100,000/$300,000); Wimbley’s insurer had $15,000/$30,000 limits.
- Wimbley’s insurer paid its limits; State Farm paid the limits on the policy covering the Jeep Willys.
- Jo Ann demanded additional underinsured motorist (UIM) policy limits from two other State Farm policies, asserting separate claims for each negligent driver.
- State Farm relied on an anti-stacking policy provision and A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H) permitting the insurer to limit coverage so only one policy selected by the insured applies to the same accident; it paid one additional policy limit and refused further payment.
- Jo Ann sued for declaratory relief; the superior court granted summary judgment for State Farm, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jo Ann may recover UIM benefits from more than one State Farm policy when two drivers allegedly caused the same accident | Yeager argued she asserted two separate "claims" (one against each negligent driver) and thus may recover under two policies | State Farm argued anti-stacking clause and A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H) permit limiting coverage so only one policy applies to the same accident | Court held insurer may limit coverage to one policy per accident; Jo Ann cannot recover under multiple policies for the same accident |
Key Cases Cited
- Giannini v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 172 Ariz. 468, 837 P.2d 1203 (App. 1992) (rejecting argument that separate tortfeasor claims allow recovery under multiple UIM policies for one accident)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 182 Ariz. 329, 897 P.2d 631 (1995) (anti-stacking clauses are valid if unambiguous and conform to statute)
- Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharp, 229 Ariz. 487, 277 P.3d 192 (2012) (interpreting subsection to limit multiple UIM recoveries for the same accident)
- Safeco Corp. v. Kuhlman, 737 P.2d 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (supporting validity of anti-stacking policy language)