State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Staton

The plaintiff was not a named insured and was not entitled to stack the UM coverage in his employer's insurance policies covering two vehicles that were not involved in the underlying car accident.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Staton v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. , 294 Ga. App. 208 669 SE2d 164 2008 and posed this question: Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that Staton was entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage from his employer’s insurance policies which covered vehicles that were not involved in the car accident in which he was injured See OCGA § 33-7-11 b 1 B; Beard v. Nunes , 269 Ga. App. 214 603 SE2d 735 2004. The short answer is “yes.” Cecil Staton was severely injured in an automobile collision. The vehicle he was driving was owned by his employer, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. “Smyth & Helwys”,1 and insured by State Farm. The policy identified the “named insured” as the “first person named” on the declarations page. Smyth & Helwys was the first and only name listed on that page. Smyth & Helwys owned two other vehicles which were insured separately by State Farm, but which were not involved in the collision. These policies also identified Smyth & Helwys, and only Smyth & Helwys, as the named insured on the declarations pages.

The UM coverage for each separate policy was $100,000. Staton wanted to stack the policies to provide UM coverage totaling $300,000. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that Staton was not the named insured on any of the policies and that, therefore, he could seek UM coverage on the policy covering only the vehicle he was driving at the time of the collision. See Beard v. Nunes , supra; OCGA § 33-7-11 b 1 B. In other words, State Farm asserted, Staton could not stack the policies covering the other two vehicles. The trial court granted the motion and Staton appealed.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Staton

The plaintiff was not a named insured and was not entitled to stack the UM coverage in his employer's insurance policies covering two vehicles that were not involved in the underlying car accident.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report