What Are the Anti-Stacking Provisions Regarding Automibile Insurance Policies ?
In Karabin v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (1984), 10 Ohio St. 3d 163, the court interpreted two automobile insurance policies, insuring separate automobiles owned by Karabin, that included clear and conspicuous anti-stacking provisions as follows:
TWO OR MORE AUTO POLICIES
If this policy and any other auto insurance policy issued to you by us apply to the same accident, the maximum limit of our liability under all the policies shall not exceed the highest applicable limit of liability under any one policy.
Each policy provided for $1,000.00 med pay and uninsured motorist coverage of $50,000.00. An uninsured motorist struck and injured Karabin while he was a pedestrian on a sidewalk.
The court recognized that the anti-stacking provision in R.C. 3937.18(E) represented a clear statement by the General Assembly that insurers can place such provisions in uninsured motorist coverage thereby limiting their liability to mat set forth in a single policy.
The court noted that medical payments coverage was not mandated by statute; rather it was a matter of contract between the insurer and the insured.
The same provision that limited uninsured motorist coverage to one policy also limited medical payments to one policy.
Where the terms of a single insurance policy afford uninsured motorist coverage for two automobiles and limit the insurer's liability to a certain sum "per person" on each automobile, such limit on each vehicle can not be added together or stacked to provide coverage in excess of that stated in the policy. Weemhoff v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 231.