In Russell v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., 188 W. Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992), the exclusion was contained within a single insurance policy that covered two separate vehicles. The policy in Russell provided underinsured motorist coverage for both vehicles of $ 20,000.00 per person, and the premium for the coverage reflected a multi-car discount for underinsured motorist coverage. The policy also contained anti-stacking language that limited the policy's underinsured motorist coverage to the highest limit applicable for any one vehicle covered by the policy. The Court examined the anti-stacking exclusion and ruled that, when a multi-car discount has been given to a policyholder, the underinsured motorist coverage in a policy cannot be stacked. The Court stated, in Syllabus Point 5 of Russell: "West Virginia Code 33-6-31 (1992) does not forbid the inclusion and application of an anti-stacking provision in an automobile insurance policy where a single insurance policy is issued by a single insurer and contains an underinsured endorsement even though the policy covers two or more vehicles. Under the terms of such a policy, the insured is not entitled to stack the coverages of the multiple vehicles and may only recover up to the policy limits set forth in the single policy endorsement. The Court concluded that because the policyholder had received the benefit of their bargain -- a multi-car discount -- that the policyholder was not entitled to stack multiple insurance coverages in light of a clear exclusion prohibiting stacking." The Court concluded that anti-stacking language in an insurance policy is enforceable where the insurance company gives the policyholder a multi-car discount. The Court stated that when a "multi-car discount is given, it is obvious that the insured appellee bargained for only one policy and only one underinsurance motorist coverage endorsement." 188 W.Va. at 85, 422 S.E.2d at 807. In Russell v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., the Court considered anti-stacking language where an insurance company had issued a single insurance policy that provided underinsured motorist coverage for two separate vehicles owned by a single insured. The Court concluded that State Automobile Ins. Co. v. Youler applied only where the insured was covered by "two or more . . . underinsured motorist policy endorsements," and therefore did not "govern the instant situation where only one policy is involved." 188 W.Va. at 84, 422 S.E.2d at 806. The Court therefore held, at Syllabus Point 5 of Russell, that: West Virginia Code 33-6-31 (1992) does not forbid the inclusion and application of an anti-stacking provision in an automobile insurance policy where a single insurance policy is issued by a single insurer and contains an underinsured endorsement even though the policy covers two or more vehicles. Under the terms of such a policy, the insured is not entitled to stack the coverages of the multiple vehicles and may only recover up to the policy limits set forth in the single policy endorsement. Our decision in Russell turned on another fact that was not present in Youler: the existence of a multi-car discount. We found in Russell that . . . because of the multi-car discount given, it is obvious that the insured appellee bargained for only one policy and only one underinsurance motorist coverage endorsement. This multi-car discount is of particular import since it signifies that the respondent was receiving a reduced rate on his automobile insurance in return for taking out only one policy instead of two. Meanwhile, the insurer was assuming an increased risk of injury which could occur while the insured was occupying the second vehicle as consideration for the second premium. The insured was therefore receiving the benefit of that which he bargained for and should not receive more. Had this multi-car discount not been given by the insurer and had the insured paid a full premium for both vehicles, a different result may have been reached by this Court. (188 W.Va. at 85, 422 S.E.2d at 807.)