The plaintiff Carol A. Yacobaeci, a minor and the daughter of thе plaintiff Richard J. Yacobaeci, was riding her bicycle on May 5, 1972, whеn she was struck by an uninsured motorist. The question involved in these proceedings is whether the policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Richard J. Yacobaeci provided uninsured motorists cоverage of $40,000 or $20,000.
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff Richаrd J. Yacobaeci was insured under a “master” contract, or so-called “crusader” contract — the only policy ever mailed to him by the defendant. That contract provided that “[wjhen two or more automobiles are insured by this policy, the terms of this policy shall apply separately to each.” In addition to the above-mentioned policy, Yacobaeci would receive intermittently from the defendant an “insurance extension certifiсate” which specified his actual premiums and coveragеs, and which identified the automobile or automobiles which were insured under the subject policy and the separate premiums due for each car. Those two documents represent the coverage to which the plaintiffs were entitled on the day of the аccident. The “master” policy underlying the individual extension certificate issued to the named insured covered two vehicles, a Dаrt and a Rambler, for the period from December 30,1971, to December 30, 1972. The extension certificate in effect at the time of thе accident set forth coverages involving the two ears and recited, in part, as follows: “immsured motorists. Each Person $20,000.” The crusadеr contract with its “attached” insurance extension certificаte provided the fulcrum of the plaintiffs’ rights relative to coverage for the accident.
*231
Where two premiums are paid for twо vehicles, whether in one policy or two, total coverage for the named insured is doubled since a person can reasonably expect double coverage when he pays dоuble premiums. See
Sturdy
v.
Allied Mutual Ins. Co.,
The Kansas Supreme Court in Sturdy stated (p. 792): “It must be borne in mind the purpose of uninsured motorist insurance is to provide compensation for personal injury to the innocent victim of the uninsured motorist.” “When we pay a double premium we expect double coveragе. This is . . . in accord with general principles of indemnity that amounts of рremiums are based on amounts of liability. Defendant [insurer] argues that what plaintiff is seeking amounts to pyramiding coverage but nothing is said about pyramiding the premiums which effectuate the coverages. We would not be understood as implying that an injured insured can pyramid separate coverages in the same policy so as to recover more than his actual loss . . . .” Id., 793.
The court concludes that the maximum exposure and coverage to the plaintiffs under thе uninsured motorists coverage of the master contract cоupled with the extension certificate issued to the plaintiff Richard J. Yacobacci is in the amount of $40,000 —• $20,000 coverage under the Dart extension certificate plus $20,000 under the Rambler extension certificate.