Travelers Property Casualty Stacking of UM/UIM Coverages Arizona Class Action

This class action, against Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company, is about stacking uninsured and underinsured (UM/UIM) motor vehicle accident claims under Arizona law. The complaint alleges that Travelers was obliged to permit stacked UM/UIM coverage, because it did not do what it was required to do to avoid it.

The class for this action is all persons insured under one or more Travelers policies issued in Arizona to the same purchaser covering them for multiple vehicles at the time of a covered loss who, from the earliest allowable time to the date of judgment in this case, receive UM/UIM benefits in an amount equal to the limits of only one of the UM/UIM coverages under the applicable policy or policies where the purchaser was not notified in writing by Travelers within thirty days after it received notice of the accident of the purchaser’s right to select one policy or coverage.

UM or UIM coverage is a personal coverage, meaning that it covers a person, even though the policy may refer to a vehicle. The complaint alleges, “When there are multiple vehicles, multiple UM/UIM coverages can exist and those coverage limits can be added together or provide ‘stacked’ benefits for a single claim. Each separate coverage limit can be accessed to provide benefits for the same covered loss.” With stacked coverage, the limit of the claim is the total of all UM/UIM coverages added together.

Under Arizona law, insurers must allow stacking unless they do one of two things: First, the insurer may include in the policy a statement saying that the insured has the “right to select one policy or coverage” as being “applicable to one accident[.]” Alternatively, within thirty days of being told about an accident, the insurer may send written notice saying the insured has the “right to select one policy or coverage.”

The plaintiff in this case, Jennifer Dale, was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company when she was badly injured in an accident in February 2020. Another driver was at fault in the accident, the complaint says, but that driver had only $15,000 in per-person bodily injury liability coverage.

Dale had over $100,000 in medical bills from her injuries and also had a substantial loss of wages, the complaint alleges, so the driver at fault was underinsured in the situation.

However, Dale had insured four vehicles, which the complaint claims gave her UM/UIM coverage of $100,000 per vehicle and $300,000 per occurrence. While Travelers was notified of Dale’s need for UIM benefits, but the complaint alleges its response did not notify her of her right to select one policy or coverage, nor did her original policy make any such statement. Eventually Travelers denied her claim for the benefits of stacked coverage.

“Travelers, having failed to avail itself of either option” to reject stacked coverage “under Arizona law,” the complaint alleges, “must stack the UM/UIM coverages for multiple vehicles insured under the Travelers Policies.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Insurance
Tags: Auto Insurance, Insurance, Stacking, UM/UIM Coverage