United States Sixth Circuit

A motion to certify a question to the Kentucky Supreme Court over whether an insurance company may charge a greater underinsured motorist insurance premium based on the number of drivers on a policy without being liable for multiple UIM coverage units is denied, and the judgment of the district court in favor of the insurance company is affirmed, where: 1) although the legal question is one of first impression under Kentucky law, the relevant caselaw addressing UIM premiums and stacking provides sufficient guidance; 2) per-driver policies are distinguishable from per-vehicle policies for stacking purposes; and 3) the UIM policy in question did not expose the insurance company to stacking since the price of the premium was justified by the increased risk that the insurer incurred by providing UIM coverage to multiple drivers.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/21/2009
• Published 01/21/2009

Judges

• Before:  BATCHELDER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges;  ZOUHARY, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Neil E. Duncliffe, Duncliffe Law Office, Georgetown, Kentucky, for Appellants.  Michael Harris Baker, Baker, Kriz, Jenkins & Prewitt, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Neil E. Duncliffe, Duncliffe Law Office, Georgetown, Kentucky, for Appellants.  Michael Harris Baker, Baker, Kriz, Jenkins & Prewitt, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellees.