The policy covered all four members of the Warren family and included separate liability coverages for each of the Warrens' four vehicles. Each vehicle's coverage provided identical bodily injury liability coverage limits of $100,000 for each person or $300,000 for each accident, although the premiums charged to the Warrens were different for each vehicle: Cadillac Escalade – $267; Chevy Impala – $251; Pontiac Grand Am – $184; and GMC Sierra – $249.

Following the accident, Progressive paid the limit of liability coverage, $100,000 to each of the three people injured in the accident (or, $300,000 total for the accident), under the Warrens' coverage on the GMC Sierra pick-up truck involved in the accident.

The three injured individuals claimed, however, that they were entitled to recover based on the combined, or stacked, liability coverage limits for all four of the Warrens' vehicles, thus totaling $400,000 per person or $1,200,000 for the accident.

Progressive rejected the effort to stack the four liability coverages, arguing that the three injured individuals had received the limits of the liability coverage available to them under the Warrens' policy. Litigation ensured and the parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive, and the dispute reached the Montana Supreme Court.

The Montana Supreme Court's Decision

The court, concluding that the trial court had not erred by denying the three injured individuals' claim to stack the Warrens' motor vehicle liability insurance coverages, affirmed.

In its decision, the court explained that the declarations page of the Warrens' policy listed the bodily injury liability coverage limits for each vehicle as “$100,000 each person/$300,000 each accident.” The court added that it also set forth a general statement prohibiting stacking, stating that “[t]he policy limits shown for a vehicle may not be combined with the limits for the same coverage on another vehicle unless the policy contract or endorsements indicate otherwise.” The court found that this prohibition on stacking was reinforced by specific terms within the policy itself, which stated, “[t]he limit of liability shown on the declarations page for liability coverage is the most we will pay regardless of the number of: 1) claims made; 2) covered autos; 3) insured persons; 4) lawsuits brought; 5) vehicles involved in the accident; or 6) premiums paid.” Finally, the court pointed out, the policy reiterated that, “[i]f a covered auto is involved in an accident, we will not pay more than the limit of liability applicable to the covered auto involved in the accident.”

The court then held that Progressive's policy “specifically and unambiguously provided that stacking of coverages would not be permitted.”

Neither public policy considerations nor Montana law, the court concluded, required “judicial voiding of the anti-stacking provisions of Progressive's policy as applied to liability coverage.”

The case is Cross v. Warren, No. DA 17-0599 (Mont. March 5, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Appellants: A. Clifford Edwards (argued), Roger W. Frickle, Edwards, Frickle & Culver, Billings, Montana; John C. Heenan (argued), Colin Gerstner, Gerstner Law PLLC Billings, Montana (for Lana Redfield); Shane Colton, Jaclyn S. Laferriere, Edmiston & Colton, Billings, Montana (for Henley & Nicola Brady). For Appellees: Mark S. Williams (argued), Susan Moriarity Miltko, Williams Law Firm, Missoula, Montana (for Progressive Direct Ins. Company); Paul Haffeman, Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe, Great Falls, Montana (for Robert and Sherle Warren and Grass Chopper LLC); Tammy Wyatt-Shaw, Hammer, Quinn & Shaw, Kalispell, Montana (for Taylor Warren). For Amici: Ann L. Moderie, Moderie Law Firm, Polson, Montana (for Montana Trial Lawyers Association); Martha Sheehy, Sheehy Law Firm, Billings, Montana (for Property Casualty Insurers Association of America).