Mountain West Farm Bureau v. Neal

No. 13047

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F

197 5

MOUNTAIN WEST F R BUREAU, e t a1.y
AM

P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

ROBERT L. NEAL, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s
A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e E s t a t e of
DEBORAH NEAL, Deceased, and
ROBERT C. DRIGGS,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record:

Scanlon and Connors, Anaconda, Montana
Joseph C. Connors argued, Anaconda, Montana
Radonich, B r o l i n and Reardon, Anaconda, Montana

For R e q m d m t s : L.L- p ~ /
-
0/&~7e&
&

Johnson and F o s t e r , Lewistown, Montana
Robert L. Johnson argued, Lewistown, Montana

Submitted: December 17, 1975

Filed :
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

P l a i n t i f f Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Company (Farm Bureau) brought a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n
a g a i n s t defendants Neal and Driggs seeking a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t
Farm Bureau i s l i a b l e t o pay no more than $10,000 t o i t s i n s u r e d ,
It
Neal, under i t s uninsured m o t o r i s t " coverage. Neal counter-
claimed t h a t Farm Bureau i s l i a b l e i n t h e amount o f $80,000.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, found Farm ~ u r e a u ' s
l i a b i l i t y t o be $40,000. Farm Bureau and Neal a p p e a l from t h i s
order.
The u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e i s whether and under what circum-
s t a n c e s a person c a r r y i n g a s i n g l e p o l i c y of automobile l i a b i l i t y
i n s u r a n c e , which i n s u r e s two o r more v e h i c l e s and i n c l u d e s a
p r o v i s i o n f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, may "stack" o r
II
pyramid" t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s . The d i s t r i c t
c o u r t h e l d t h a t under t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i n q u e s t i o n t h e uninsured
m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s may be s t a c k e d on t h e b a s i s of t h e number
o f v e h i c l e s i n s u r e d , b u t t h a t t h o s e l i m i t s may n o t be stacked on
both t h e wrongful d e a t h and s u r v i v a l claims. W affirm.
e
The f a c t s of t h i s c a s e were s t i p u l a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t and a r e undisputed h e r e . P r i o r t o J u l y 4 , 1971, Farm
Bureau i s s u e d i t s p o l i c y of automobile l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e t o Neal,
t h e p o l i c y included a p r o v i s i o n f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage i n
t h e amount of $10,000 f o r one person i n any one a c c i d e n t . Four
motor v e h i c l e s , a l l owned by Neal, were covered by t h e same p o l i c y .
Neal, h i s w i f e , and h i s daughter Deborah were named i n s u r e d s by
d e f i n i t i o n under t h e p o l i c y , which was i n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t on
J u l y 4 , 1971.
O J u l y b , 1971, Deborah Neal was r i d i n g on a motorcycle
n
owned and operated by Robert Driggs, t h e o t h e r defendant h e r e i n .
A a c c i d e n t occurred i n which Deborah was i n j u r e d ; she d i e d on
n
J u l y 10, 1971. Driggs was an uninsured m o t o r i s t a t t h e time of
t h e accident.
Neal brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t Driggs and Farm Bureau i n
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G a l l a t i n County seeking damages from Driggs
f o r ~ e b o r a h ' si n j u r y and d e a t h , and reimbursement from Farm
Bureau under t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t p r o v i s i o n s of i t s p o l i c y w i t h
Neal. T h e r e a f t e r , on February 6 , 1974, Farm Bureau f i l e d i t s
complaint f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n Lewis and Clark County
a g a i n s t Neal and Driggs. The G a l l a t i n County a c t i o n between Neal
and Driggs i s pending, Farm Bureau having been dropped a s a p a r t y
thereto.
Farm Bureau a l l e g e d i n i t s complaint t h a t i t had tendered
$10,000 t o Neal t o s a t i s f y i t s o b l i g a t i o n under t h e uninsured
m o t o r i s t p r o v i s i o n s of i t s p o l i c y ; t h a t s a i d t e n d e r had been
r e p e a t e d l y r e f u s e d ; and t h a t Neal b e l i e v e d he was e n t i t l e d t o
m u l t i p l y t h e $10,000 l i m i t f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage by t h e
number of automobiles Neal had i n s u r e d under t h e same p o l i c y .
Farm Bureau prayed f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t
i t was under no duty o r o b l i g a t i o n t o pay more than $10,000 t o
Neal f o r i n j u r i e s t o and d e a t h of Deborah Neal under t h e terms
of t h e p o l i c y .
Defendant Neal answered by a d m i t t i n g a l l o f Farm Bureau's
a l l e g a t i o n s save t h o s e which would l i m i t Farm Bureau's l i a b i l i t y
t o $10,000 o r t o $40,000. Neal counterclaimed f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y
judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t Farm Bureau's maximum o b l i g a t i o n under
t h e p o l i c y i s $80,000 ---$40,000 f o r t h e damages t o t h e h e i r s f o r
t h e wrongful d e a t h of Deborah Neal, and $40,000 f o r t h e bodily
i n j u r i e s and p e r s o n a l s u f f e r i n g of Deborah Neal under h e r s u r v i v a l
claim. Thus Neal sought t o "stack" uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage
l i m i t s i n two ways, v i z . (1) by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e $10,000 l i m i t by
t h e number of i n s u r e d v e h i c l e s ( f o u r ) , and (2) by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e
$40,000 l i a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g thereby by t h e number o f c l a i m s prosecuted
by Neal a s an i n s u r e d i n d i v i d u a l and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e h e i r s
of Deborah Neal, and a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Deborah Ileal' s e s t a t e ,

(two).
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lewis and Clark County had b e f o r e
i t t h e s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s and a copy of t h e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d
by Farm Bureau t o Neal. Following h e a r i n g and submission of
b r i e f s , t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t Farm ~ u r e a u ' smaximum t o t a l o b l i g a t i o n
t o Neal under i t s p o l i c y f o r a l l i n j u r i e s t o and t h e d e a t h of
Deborah Neal i s t h e sum o f $40,000. Farm Bureau a p p e a l s from t h a t
p o r t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r which permits s t a c k i n g t h e
$10,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t on t h e t h e o r y t h a t f o u r
v e h i c l e s were i n s u r e d by one p o l i c y ; Neal a p p e a l s from t h e p o r t i o n
of t h e o r d e r which d e n i e s h i s a t t e m p t t o s t a c k t h e two claims a s
an i n s u r e d i n d i v i d u a l and a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Deborah ~ e a l ' s
estate.
The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e :

(1) D t h e insurance policy provisions r e l a t i n g t o
o
uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage c o n t a i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s which r e n d e r
t h e p o l i c y ambiguous, t h u s p e r m i t t i n g a j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of
t h e p o l i c y which allows s t a c k i n g based on t h e number of v e h i c l e s
insured?
(2) Can t h e i n s u r a n c e claimant Neal s t a c k uninsured
m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s on t h e b a s i s of h i s c a p a c i t y t o sue on
two c l a i m s , i . e . , a s an i n s u r e d i n d i v i d u a l and a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r
of Deborah ~ e a l ' s s t a t e ?
e
I n i t s o r d e r and opinion d a t e d March 1 2 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t disposed of t h e f i r s t i s s u e i n t h i s language:
"1t i s t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Court t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s
o f t h e p o l i c y d e a l i n g w i t h and l a b e l l e d ' ~ i m i t sof
~ i a b i l i t y ' (pg.32) and t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s of paragraph
'1' o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s s e c t i o n of t h e p o l i c y (pg.37)
a r e c o n t r a d i c t o r y , ambiguous and beyond r e c o n c i l i a t i o n
and must t h e r e f o r e be construed i n f a v o r of t h e p o l i c y -
h o l d e r . When s o c o n s t r u e d , t h e e f f e c t of paragraph '1'
 -
a f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s i s t o provide f o u r s e p a r a t e
p o l i c i e s of uninsured m o t o r i s t i n s u r a n c e w i t h
maxlmum l i a b i l i t y of $10,000 each f o r each person
physically injured o r k i l l e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r
occurrence, t h e r e having been f o u r v e h i c l e s i n s u r e d
under t h e p o l i c y a t t h e time of t h e i n j u r y . JC JC JX"
(Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y p r o v i s i o n r e f e r r e d t o s t a t e s
i.n p a r t :
" ( a ) 'The l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y , a s s t a t e d i n t h e
d e c l a r a t i o n s f o r uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, a s
a p p l i c a b l e t o ' each person' i s t h e l i m i t of t h e
company's l i a b i l i t y f o r a l l damages, i n c l u d i n g
damages f o r c a r e o r l o s s of s e r v i c e s , because of
b o d i l y i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by one person a s t h e r e s u l t
of any one a c c i d e n t and, s u b j e c t t o t h e above pro-
v i s i o n r e s p e c t i n g each person, t h e l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y
s t a t e d i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s a s a p p l i c a b l e t o 'each
a c c i d e n t ' i s t h e t o t a l l i m i t o f t h e Company's
l i a b i l i t y f o r a l l damages, i n c l u d i n g damages f o r
c a r e o r l o s s of s e r v i c e s , because of b o d i l y i n j u r y
s u s t a i n e d by two o r more persons a s a r e s u l t o f
any one a c c i d e n t . I I
L~aragraph I ' 1I t of t h e d e f i n i t i o n s s e c t i o n provides i n
oertinent part:
I'
(1) Two (2) o r more automobiles--- Fhen two (2)
o r more automobiles a r e i n s u r e d hereunder, t h e
terms of Section 1 1 s h a l l apply s e p a r a t e l y t o
1
each JX it J;."

This p r o v i s i o n i s r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e .
The r u l e of c o n s t r u c t i o n of i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s i n Montana
< " a

i s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 40-3725, R.C.M. 1947:
1'
Construction of p o l i c i e s . Every i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t
s h a l l be construed according, t o t h e e n t i r e t v of i t s
terms and c o n d i t i o n s a s s e t - f o r t h i n t h e and
a s a m p l i f i e d , extended, o r modified by any r i d e r ,
endorsement, o r a p p l i c a t i o n which i s a p a r t of t h e
p o l i c y . 11
It i s a l s o t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t where an ambiguity
i n an insurance p o l i c y e x i s t s a f t e r viewing i t i n i t s e n t i r e t y ,
t h e terms t h e r e o f w i l l be construed l i b e r a l l y i n f a v o r of t h e

insured and s t r i c t l y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r . I n Atcheson v. Safeco
Insurance Company, 165 Mont. 239, 527 P.2d 549, 31 St.Rep. 839,846,
it i s said:

"When an ambiguity a r i s e s ik J; *
t h e i n s u r e d i s en-
t i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t of any doubt. I I
See also: Lamb v . "age, 153 Mor~t. 171, 455 P . 2 d 337; St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 150 Mont. 182, 433 P. 2d 795;
Johnson v. Equitable Ins. Co., 142 Mont. 128, 381 P.2d 778; Eby
v. Foremost Insurance Co., 141 Mont. 62, 374 P.2d 857. Cf. Stonewall
I n s . Co. v. West, 163 Mont. 12, 514 P.2d 764; Jones v. Virginia
Surety Co., 145 Mont. 440, 401 P.2d 570; Section 13-720, R.C.M.
1947.
Viewing the limits of liability clause and separability
clause in juxtaposition and as part of the entire policy leads
II
to the conclusion that they are contradictory, ambiguous and
beyond reconciliation.1 1 The separability clause is expressly
made part of the uninsured motorist coverage. The limits of
liability clause limits coverage for "each person" in any one
accident to $10,000. On the other hand, under the separability clause
each separate automobile is governed by the limits of liability
clause of the policy. Thus, under the former clause Neal would
recover no more than $10,000; under the latter he could recover up
co $40,000.
Applying the rules of construction of insurance policies
hereinabove stated, we hold the district court was correct in
construing the ambiguous provisions in favor of the insured, Neal,
and stacking uninsured motorist coverage limits to a maximum of
$40,000.
Further clarification of this holding can be found in
uninsured motorist cases from Montana and other jurisdictions.
Farm Bureau and Neal strongly contested the application to the in-
stant case of Sullivan v. Doe, 159 Mont. 50,59,60,62, 495 P.2d
1 9 3 , the only other reported Montana case dealing with uninsured

motorist coverage. The pertinent issue in Sullivan as stated by
the Court was:
'I* * * whether it is permissible for an insurance
company in Montana to place limitations in its
t uninsured motorist1 coverage which reduce or

eliminate its liability below the statutory limits."
This Court unanimously h e l d where t h e r e were two i n s u r a n c e
p o l i c i e s on one i n d i v i d u a l , both of which contained uninsured
m o t o r i s t coverage, n e i t h e r i n s u r e r could l i m i t i t s l i a b i l i t y
below t h e $10,000 s t a t u t o r y l i m i t by deducting workman's com-
pensation o r "other insurance" b e n e f i t payments by v i r t u e o f
certain policty clauses. These c l a u s e s , a s a p p l i e d by t h e i n s u r -
ance companies, were i n d e r o g a t i o n of t h e l e t t e r and s p i r i t of
Montana's uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 40-4403, R.C.M.
1947, and were d e c l a r e d void. I n S u l l i v a n we were d e a l i n g w i t h
two i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s and w i t h a "primary" and "excess1' i n s u r e r .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , S u l l i v a n a i d s our t a s k h e r e by d e c l a r i n g :
"* Jc* The b a s i c purpose of t h i s [uninsured m o t o r i s t ]
s t a t u t e i s obvious---to provide p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e
automobile i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y h o l d e r a g a i n s t t h e r i s k of
inadequate compensation f o r i n j u r i e s o r d e a t h caused
by t h e n e g l i g e n c e of f i n a n c i a l l y i r r e s p o n s i b l e motor-
ists.

t IThe l e g i s l a t i v e purpose * * i s simply t o p l a c e
t h e i n j u r e d p o l i c y h o l d e r i n t h e same p o s i t i o n he would
have been i f t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t had l i a b i l i t y i n -
surance * * *. '1
11
In d i s c u s s i n g t h e excess" i n s u r e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t s "other
insurance" c l a u s e r e l i e v e d i t of any l i a b i l i t y , we s t a t e d :
119c **t h e s t a t u t o r y requirement o f $10,000
I uninsured m o t o r i s t ' coverage p r e s c r i b e s a minimum
amount only and does n o t p u r p o r t t o f i x a s t a t u t o r y
maximum. l I
The l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s enunciated i n
S u l l i v a n apply w i t h e q u a l f o r c e h e r e . T h e r e f o r e , where an i n s u r e r
does n o t v a l i d l y l i m i t i t s l i a b i l i t y t o t h e s t a t u t o r y minimum,
che uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s can b e stacked t o e f f e c t u a t e
t h e purpose of t h e uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e . That purpose i s
i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i n s u r e d up t o t h e l i m i t of t h e i n s u r e r ' s
L i a b i l i t y , a s s t a c k e d , o r t h e t o t a l damages s u f f e r e d by t h e insured---
whichever i s l e s s .
Both p a r t i e s i n t h i s appeal c i t e d c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s -
d i c t i o n s i n support of t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a c k i n g of
uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage l i m i t s based on number of v e h i c l e s
insured. Without e x t e n s i v e l y reviewing t h o s e c o n f l i c t i n g c a s e s
i n t h i s opinion, we f i n d ~ e a l ' sa u t h o r i t i e s more p e r s u a s i v e .
I n i t s o r d e r and opinion, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x p r e s s l y
r e l i e d on t h e Indiana c a s e of J e f f r i e s v. Stewart, (1nd.App. 1974),
309 N.E.2d 448. In J e f f r i e s t h e c o u r t found an ambiguity c r e a t e d
by a l i m i t s o f l i a b i l i t y c l a u s e and s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e almost
i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and construed t h e p o l i c y
i n f a v o r of s t a c k i n g coverage l i m i t s . Subsequently i n M i l l e r v.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 506 F.2d 11,15, t h e Court of
Appeals a p p l i e d Indiana law t o an uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage
s t a c k i n g s i t u a t i o n , a f f i r m e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court and h e l d t h a t
s t a c k i n g was n o t p e r m i s s i b l e . However, i t r e c o n c i l e d t h i s holding
w i t h J e f f r i e s by s t a t i n g :
If* ** Resolving t h e ambiguity i n f a v o r of t h e
insured, i t [the J e f f r i e s court1 held t h a t t h e
i n s u r e d was e n t i t l e d t o a g g r e g a t e t h e l i a b i l i t y
l i m i t s . I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , however, t h e r e was
no s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e a f f e c t i n g t h e uninsured
m o t o r i s t coverage and no ambiguity i n t h e p o l i c y
coverage, and t h e c a s e l o g i c a l l y may b e d i s t i n -
guished. f: ik -'-I1 48

I t i s w i t h t h e reasoning o f t h i s statement from Miller
t h a t we d i s t i n g u i s h Westchester F i r e I n s u r a n c e Company v. Tucker,
(Tex.1974), 512 S.W.2d 679, r e l i e d on by Farm Bureau. Cf. T a l b o t
v, S t a t e Farm Mutual Automobile I n s . Co. (Miss.1974), 291 So.2d
699, (no r e f e r e n c e t o s e p a r a b i l i t y c l a u s e ) . Other c a s e s c i t e d by
Farm Bureau e i t h e r d e a l w i t h g e n e r a l l i a b i l i t y coverage r a t h e r than
uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage, P a c i f i c Indemnity Company v. Thompson,
56 Wash.2d 715, 355 P.2d 12; o r f a i l t o make any d i s t i n c t i o n between
t h e two t y p e s of coverage, C a s t l e v. United P a c i f i c Insurance Group,
252 O r . 44, 448 P.2d 357; Kennedy v. American Hardware Mutual I n s .
Co., 255 O r . 425, 467 P.2d 963; A l l s t a t e Insurance Company v. Schmitka,
21 Cal.App.3d 59, 90 Cal.Rptr. 399; Arminski v. United S t a t e s
F i d e l i t y and Guaranty Co., 23 Mich.App. 352, 178 N.W.2d 497; O t t o
v. A l l s t a t e Insurance Company, 2 I11.App.3d 58, 275 N.E.2d 766;
A l l s t a t e Insurance Company v. IlcHugh, 124 N,J.Super. 105, 304 A,2d
777; Hurles v. Republic F r a n k l i n I n s . Co., 39 Ohio App,2d 118,
316 N.E.2d 494. I n o r d e r t o promote t h e a d j u d i c a t e d purpose of
our uninsured m o t o r i s t s t a t u t e , we d e c l i n e t o follow t h e s e c a s e s .
Farm Bureau u r g e s one more p o i n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e
II
f i r s t i s s u e , namely, t h a t t h e d u p l i c a t e coverage" c l a u s e of t h e
p o l i c y e n t i t l e d t h e i n s u r e d t o only one s e t of uninsured m o t o r i s t
coverage l i m i t s . However, we a g r e e w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , which
s t a t e d i n i t s o r d e r and opinion:
II The ' d u p l i c a t e coverage' p r o v i s i o n 9: **
d e a l s w i t h d u p l i c a t e coverage w i t h i n a s i n g l e
p o l i c y , n o t s i m i l a r coverage i n m u l t i p l e p o l i c i e s .
I f i t was intended t o l i m i t t h e s t a t u t o r i l y r e -
q u i r e d and accepted uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage It
w i t h i n any of t h e s e p a r a t e p o l i c i e s , i t i s i n v a l i d .
Cf. S u l l i v a n v , Doe, 159 Mont. 50, 495 P.2d 193.
O c r o s s - a p p e a l Neal maintains t h e $40.000 l i a b i l i t y o f
n
. ' ,

Farm Bureau should b e doubled because t h e r e a r e two c l a i m s i n t h e
main t o r t a c t i o n - - s u r v i v a l and wrongful d e a t h . I n e f f e c t , Neal
claims coverage a s (1) t h e l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r
of Deborah N e a l ' s e s t a t e f o r h e r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s and d e a t h , and
(2) an i n s u r e d . i n d i v i d u a 1 under t h e p o l i c y and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of
Deborah ~ e a l ' s e i r s , a l s o i n s u r e d s under t h e p o l i c y ,
h Alternatively,
Neal seems t o c l a i m t h a t i n event t h e $20,000 l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y
f o r "each a c c i d e n t " s e t f o r t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f l i a b i l i t y c l a u s e
and t h e p o l i c y d e c l a r a t i o n s can b e s t a c k e d on t h e f o u r s e p a r a t e
p o l i c i e s t o $80,000.
The main argument r u n s a f o u l o f t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e p o l i c y
d e f i n i t i o n of "Named insuredi' which provides :
II
The i n s u r a n c e a f f o r d e d under Coverage P [uninsured
motorist] applies separately t o each i n s u r e d , b u t
t h e i n c l u s i o n h e r e i n of more than one i n s u r e d s h a l l
not operate t o increase the l i m i t s of t h e Company's
liability. "
Accordingly ~ e a l ' sc l a i m o f $80,000 uninsured m o t o r i s t coverage
must f a i l .
N e a l ' s a l t e r n a t i v e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e "each a c c i d e n t "
l i m i t of $20,000 can be s t a c k e d i s without m e r i t . The l i m i t s of
liability clause, heretofore set forth, subordinates the "each
It
accident1'provision to the each person" provision. The district
court was correct in denying this claim.
The order of the district court is affirmed.

Justice .
We Concur:
n

Chief'Justice James T. Harrison and Justice Wesley Castles
dissenting:
We dissent.
We do not agree that there is any ambiguity in the
liability and separability clauses and thus would not construe
anything.
However, we do agree with the majority's discussion
of the cross-appeal.

i".
' "- Justice.