When you're involved in an accident, having sufficient car insurance coverage
is important. When an uninsured or underinsured motorist crashes into
your car, that's doubly true, because he or she doesn't have enough to
cover your medical bills and property damage. "Stacking" your
uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage can be a lifesaver —
if your state allows it.
Stacking UM/UIM coverages means you are able to collect from more than one car insurance policy.
|
Stacking UM/UIM coverages means you are able to collect from more than one car insurance
policy to receive full payment for your injuries and property damage.
Not every state allows this, so check the chart at end of this story.
Here's how you can stack your coverages.
Example 1
You own an auto insurance policy under which two or more cars are
insured with UM/UIM coverage. When you're hit by an uninsured or
underinsured driver, you collect the limits of your UM/UIM coverage
under as many vehicles as necessary to receive full payment for your
damages. For example, if you have a two-car policy with $50,000 worth
of bodily injury UM/UIM coverage per person on each car, you can
collect up to $100,000.
Example 2
You own more than one auto insurance policy with UM/UIM coverage. (The
policies could be with the same insurer or two different insurers.) To
collect all of the damages, you could make a claim under the UM/UIM
coverage of each of the insurance policies you own. For example, if you
have one policy with $50,000 worth of UM/UIM bodily injury coverage per
person and another policy with $25,000 worth of UM/UIM bodily injury
coverage, you can collect up to $75,000 for any injury you suffer as a
result of a collision with an uninsured or underinsured motorist.
Some
state laws prohibit stacking of UM/UIM coverage, but many allow it in
one form or another. As of September 2008, 29 states have statutes,
rules or case law that either specifically allows stacking or does not
address it. However, Robert Passmore, spokesperson for the Property
Casualty Insurers Association of America, cautions that the details of
your situation can effect your ability to stack coverage and that state
laws, rules and codes change often as courts issue new decisions.
Also,
in many of the states that allow stacking, auto insurers nonetheless
permitted to insert policy language that prevents policyholders from
stacking UM/UIM coverage. So while your state might permit stacking, if
your policy expressly forbids it, you won't be able to stack your
benefits.
Another wrinkle: The states that expressly forbid stacking of your UM/UIM benefits when you're the driver of a vehicle hit by an uninsured motorist might allow you to stack coverage if you are injured as a passenger in a vehicle or as a pedestrian
that has been struck by an uninsured driver. For example, if you're a
passenger in a car struck by an uninsured driver, you could collect
benefits from the insurance policy of the driver of the car in which
you are a passenger, as well as from your own policy if the driver's
UM/UIM benefits were not enough to pay for your injuries.
There's
also the possibility that you can collect from your own UM and UIM
coverage more than once because many states regard these as separate
coverages. For example, if you're a pedestrian who's hit by an
uninsured driver, your UM coverage would kick in first and,
theoretically, you could collect from your UIM coverage if your UM
coverage is not enough to pay for your injuries.
However,
the laws in each state vary widely with each situation and often depend
on previous cases that have been decided in court. The bottom line is
that there is often no easy answer to finding out if you can stack your
UM/UIM benefits.
| State |
UM/UIM
stacking allowed?
|
Citation
|
| Alabama |
Yes |
23 Alabama Revised
Statutes
|
| Alaska |
No |
.445 Alaska Statutes |
| |
Yes |
9.1 Arizona Revised Statutes(1) |
| Arkansas |
Yes |
No citation(2) |
| California |
No |
.2(q) California Insurance Code |
| Colorado |
Yes |
609 Colorado Revised Statutes |
| Connecticut |
No |
36 Connecticut Insurance Code |
| Delaware |
Yes |
Title 18 Delaware Code (3) |
| Florida |
Yes |
27 Florida Statutes(4) |
| Georgia |
Yes |
Georgia Insurance Law 11 |
| Hawaii |
Yes |
0c-301 Hawaii Statutes |
| Idaho |
No |
No citation(5) |
| Illinois |
No |
LCS 5/143a |
| Indiana |
Yes |
Indiana Code 5-5 (6) |
| Iowa |
Yes |
Iowa Code 2 |
| Kansas |
No |
Kansas Statute No. 40-284 |
| Kentucky |
Yes |
No citation(7) |
| Louisiana |
No |
06 Louisiana Revised Statutes |
| Maine |
No |
No citation |
| Maryland |
No |
No citation(8) |
| Massachusetts |
No |
Ch. 175 Massachusetts General Laws |
| Michigan |
No |
No citation |
| Minnesota |
No |
9 Minnesota Statutes |
| Mississippi |
Yes |
No citation(9) |
| Missouri |
Yes |
03 Missouri Revised Statutes |
| Montana |
Yes |
-203 Montana Code |
| Nebraska |
No |
01 Nebraska Revised Statutes |
| Nevada |
Yes |
145 Nevada Revised Statutes(10) |
| New Hampshire
|
No |
No citation(11) |
| New Jersey |
Yes |
-1.1 New Jersey Revised Statutes (12) |
| New Mexico |
Yes |
New Mexico Administrative Code Title 13 17.6 |
| New York |
Yes |
Ch. 35d 3e(iii) New York Administrative Rules (13) |
| North Carolina |
Yes |
9.21 North Carolina Statutes (14) |
| North Dakota |
No |
1-40-15.3 North Dakota Statutes |
| Ohio |
Yes |
18 Ohio Revised Statutes (15) |
| Oklahoma |
No |
No citation |
| Oregon |
Yes |
No citation(16) |
| Pennsylvania |
Yes |
Title 75 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes |
| Rhode Island |
Yes |
2.1 Rhode Island Statutes |
| South Carolina |
Yes |
No citation(17) |
| South Dakota |
No |
-9 South Dakota Code |
| Tennessee |
No |
1201 Tennessee Code |
| Texas |
Yes |
Texas Statutes 1952.101-170 (18) |
| Utah |
Yes |
Title 31A 5 Utah Insurance Code (19) |
| Vermont |
Yes |
No citation(20) |
| Virginia |
Yes |
2206 Code of Virginia (21) |
| Washington |
No |
.030 Revised Code of Washington |
| West Virginia |
Yes |
No citation(22) |
| Wisconsin |
Yes |
2 Wisconsin Revised Statutes (23) |
Wyoming |
No |
No citation(24) |
Statutes as of September 2008
Source: Property Casualty Insurers Association of America |
(1) Insurers are permitted to add anti-stacking language to auto insurance policies.
(2) According
to the Arkansas Department of Insurance, if the insurance policy
language is ambiguous, courts allow stacking as long as the
policyholder does not receive a windfall from the insurance settlement.
However, courts in more recent cases have held that stacking benefits
is not allowed, according to the department.
(3) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(4) Insurers are permitted to add anti-stacking language to auto insurance policies.
(5) According to the Idaho Department of Insurance, courts have ruled stacking UM/UIM benefits is not permitted.
(6) Stacking is allowed but only within one policy.
(7) According to the Kentucky Department of Insurance, courts have ruled that stacking is permitted.
(8)
Generally speaking, stacking of coverages under the same policy is not
allowed, but stacking of coverages under different policies is
permitted. However, courts in Maryland are divided on the matter,
making their rulings based on the individual facts of the case.
(9)
According to the Mississippi Department of Insurance, stacking is
allowed based on Allstate Insurance Co. vs. Randall 753 F.2d 441 (5th
Cir. 1985).
(10) Insurers that give a multicar discount are permitted to insert anti-stacking language into the insurance policy.
(11)
Generally speaking, stacking benefits under the same policy is not
permitted, but stacking benefits under different policies is allowed,
according to the New Hampshire Department of Insurance.
(12) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(13) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(14) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple private passenger auto policies.
(15) Stacking is allowed but insurers are permitted to exclude it in the policy.
(16) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(17) Stacking is allowed unless the policy has an anti-stacking clause that confirms with case law.
(18) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(19) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(20) According to the Vermont Department of Insurance, courts have ruled that stacking is permitted.
(21) Stacking is allowed but only among multiple policies.
(22)
According to the West Virginia Insurance Commission, courts permit
stacking of UM/UIM benefits, but if an insurer offers a multicar
discount on an insurance policy, courts have ruled that the insurer can
insert anti-stacking language into the policy.
(23) Stacking is allowed but insurers are permitted to exclude it in the policy.
(24)
According to the Wyoming Department of Insurance, courts have ruled
that state law does not require insurers to allow stacking of UM
benefits. Courts have not ruled on the stacking of UIM benefits.
