Meyers v. American States Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that employee was entitled to employer’s uninsured motorist coverage but not entitled to stack the coverage
• “we have always recognized the inherent entitlement of Class I insureds to stack coverage for which they contracted”
• “[I]t is necessary in Mississippi to aggregate or stack all (uninsured motorist) coverage limits applicable to the (injured) insured.”
• “May and Co.’s automobile insurance policy explicitly provides coverage for Meyers’ vehicle on its designation page and also makes clear that coverage of Meyers’ vehicle is part of the consideration for which May and Co. paid its insurance premium.”
• “May and Co.’s automobile insurance policy explicitly provides coverage for Meyers’ vehicle on its designation page and also makes clear that coverage of Meyers’ vehicle is part of the consideration for which May and Co. paid its insurance premium.”
• “[w]e therefore explicitly state what we implied with our holding in Mascarella. To the extent our previous decisions held Class II insureds were entitled to uninsured motorist benefits beyond those for which a named insured contracted, they are overruled.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).