Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Insurance Company Must Stack Multiple UM Coverages If The Anti-Stacking Language Is Not Clear.

Multiple UM Coverages Farmers issued two separate auto policies to the Torres family.  Both policies included uninsured coverage.

The Torres daughter was injured when a moped on which she was a passenger crashed.  There was no coverage on the moped so Mr. Torres turned to her parent’s auto policy for UM coverage.

The company admitted coverage and paid one of the two UM coverages.  However, it argued that it owed no duty to stack the policies because of the anti-stacking provision in an Endorsement. The trial court agreed that the anti-stacking provision of the policies prevented stacking. 

In Torres v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 106 Nev. 340, 793 P.2d 839 (1990) the Nevada Supreme Court considered the policy provision in light of NRS 687B.145.  The court explained that in order to be enforced, the anti-stacking provision must be clear, the clause must be prominently displayed and the insured cannot have paid two separate premiums.

The court said that the provision was not clear.  Therefore, it refused to allow the anti-stacking provision to be enforced.

If you have further questions about UM/UIM stacking in Nevada, please contact Mike Mills at Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell.  He can be reached at 702.240.6060×114.  You can also send him an email at