Sibbert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Roger SIBBERT, Et Al., Respondents, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
Subsequent history: aff'd, Sibbert v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 371 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 1985). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.