Daughhetee, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., No. 13-1185 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, injured in a truck accident that killed their daughter, filed suit for additional payment under a State Farm policy insuring another vehicle (Hyundai policy) that had identical underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage as the policy insuring their truck (Ford policy). The court concluded that a reasonable person, reading the Hyundai policy in its entirety, would know the stacking of the UIM policies was prohibited. Further, the district court correctly ruled that the Hyundai policy was not illusory. Because the district court found that the Hyundai policy unambiguously precluded policy stacking, it did not address State Farm's alternative argument that the UIM "Exclusions" in the policy barred recovery for any insured other than plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil Case - diversity. District court's grant of summary judgment to insurer is affirmed. Anti-stacking paragraph of policy covering the Ford F-150 in unambiguous. Policy covering Hyndai that refers to excess coverage, when read in its entirety, is also unambiguous. The district court correctly ruled that the construction of the Hyundai policy that prohibits underinsured motorist stacking does not render the policy illusory. [ February 13, 2014
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.