Atkinson v. Allstate Insurance Company et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM DECISION following 20 Order. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 5/3/13 (alt) Modified on 5/3/2013: added link to 11 Motion (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

KASANDRA ATKINSON,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation, and STATE FARM
INSURANCE COMPANY,

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00247-DN
Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.

The above-entitled matter came before the court on Defendant State Farm Insurance
Company’s (“State Farm”) motion for summary judgment. 1 The matter was fully briefed, and
after considering the parties’ arguments, the court granted State Farm’s motion. 2
UNDISPUTED FACTS
On November 14, 2007, Plaintiff, a minor, was injured in an accident while a passenger
in an automobile driven by a MetLife insured. Plaintiff lived at her grandparents’ house at the
time of the accident. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff received a settlement from MetLife for
their insured’s liability policy limits. Plaintiff alleged that the liability limits of MetLife were
insufficient to cover her damages, so Plaintiff made a demand for her grandparents’ underinsured
motorist (“UIM”) coverage limits on one of their State Farm policies, which State Farm paid.
1
2

Dkt. no. 11, filed November 2, 2012.
Dkt. no. 20, filed April 8, 2013.

Subsequently, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against State Farm, alleging that she is entitled to
stack her grandparents’ additional State Farm UIM policy to the amounts she has already
received under the first State Farm UIM policy and the MetLife policy.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds that, with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against State Farm, State Farm’s
insurance policy unambiguously limits Plaintiff’s UIM coverage under her grandparents’ policies
to one policy from that household. This interpretation is consistent with Utah’s statutes on UIM
coverage in which the Utah State Legislature has “enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme
governing stacking in the context of UIM coverage.” 3 Specifically, Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22305.3 (2007) 4 provides the relevant provisions governing whether Plaintiff is entitled to stack her
grandparents’ State Farm policies.
Pursuant to § 31A-22-305.3, and the reasoning set forth in Green, the Utah Legislature
has made it clear that under the undisputed facts of this case, Plaintiff is entitled to one UIM
policy from her grandparents’ household, and she is not permitted to stack her grandparents’
additional UIM policies to the coverages she already received. As State Farm has already paid
Plaintiff under one of her grandparents’ UIM policies, she is not entitled to any additional
coverage or payments from State Farm and her claims against State Farm are therefore
dismissed.

3

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Green, 2003 UT 48, ¶ 44, 89 P.3d 97.

4

The 2007 version of the statute is the applicable law because it was in effect on the date of the accident. See id. at
¶ 45.

-2-

ORDER
Based upon the foregoing and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Insurance Company’s motion for
summary judgment is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of Plaintiff’s claims in this case against State Farm
are dismissed with prejudice.
Dated May 3, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge

-3-