Sibbert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Sibbert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

354 N.W.2d 106, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3500

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 4, 1984

DocketC7-84-571

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 N.W.2d 106 (Sibbert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sibbert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 354 N.W.2d 106, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3500 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Sibbert was injured in a two-car accident while driving his Camaro. He also owns a Duster. He maintained a separate underin-surance policy on each car with State Farm. He recovered the other driver’s $25,000 liability limits. Although State Farm did pay the no-fault and underinsu-rance benefits on the Camaro, it refuses to pay the underinsurance coverage on the Duster, pursuant to an exclusionary clause in the policy barring claims for accidents in vehicles owned by the insured, but covered under separate policies. State Farm appeals the trial court’s ruling that this “anti-stacking” provision was void.

In Sobania v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 349 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), this court ruled that a policy clause which prevented stacking of underinsured motorist *107 coverage benefits was void. There the plaintiff did not have underinsured motorist coverage on the motorcycle he was riding at the time of the accident, but did have that coverage on a car that he owned. We allowed coverage.

We are unable to make a factual distinction between this case and Sobania, and conclude that Sobania controls. The exclusionary clause in State Farm’s policy is unenforceable.

DECISION

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Sibbert was injured in a two-car accident while driving his Camaro. He also owns a Duster. He maintained a separate underin-surance policy on each car with State Farm. He recovered the other driver’s $25,000 liability limits. Although State Farm did pay the no-fault and underinsu-rance benefits on the Camaro, it refuses to pay the underinsurance coverage on the Duster, pursuant to an exclusionary clause in the policy barring claims for accidents in vehicles owned by the insured, but covered under separate policies. State Farm appeals the trial court’s ruling that this “anti-stacking” provision was void.

In Sobania v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 349 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), this court ruled that a policy clause which prevented stacking of underinsured motorist *107 coverage benefits was void. There the plaintiff did not have underinsured motorist coverage on the motorcycle he was riding at the time of the accident, but did have that coverage on a car that he owned. We allowed coverage.

We are unable to make a factual distinction between this case and Sobania, and conclude that Sobania controls. The exclusionary clause in State Farm’s policy is unenforceable.

DECISION

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 N.W.2d 106, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sibbert-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-minnctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack