INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Sorry but it doesn’t stack up
Ronald and Ellen Saslow (Saslows) held both a primary auto policy with $500,000 uninsured motorists/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) limits and a $1 million umbrella issued by Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers).
While the above policies were both in force, an accident occurred. Ronald and a passenger (not Ellen) were injured in a serious accident. At the time, Ronald was operating a rented vehicle. The Saslows received a settlement of nearly $880,000 from the other party in the accident.
In addition, claims were repeatedly filed with Bankers. The Saslows were eventually paid $1.1 million under their policies’ UM/UIM and medical expense coverage parts. However, the Saslows were not satisfied by the amount of coverage received and they filed a lawsuit. A district court filed in favor of Bankers, ruling that no obligation existed for additional coverage. The Saslows appealed.
The Saslows presented several reasons they believe justified additional coverage. One was that more than one party was involved in causing their accident. A second was that, as their underlying policy listed several vehicles that they made separate premium payments for, it was permissible to stack the limits (including those in their following form umbrella).
Finally, they argued that applicable state law made them eligible to seek additional damages as delays in payments from Bankers constituted insurer misconduct. Therefore, the court should find an extracontractual liability for punitive payments.
The higher court addressed the various complaints. In its opinion, the language in their policies contained standard language that limited the amounts available to respond to a single, eligible occurrence. Specifically, maximum possible limits were not affected by the number of persons, claimants, claims, vehicles or injuries involved in a given loss. Their policies also contained similar language barring stacking in their respective other insurance provisions.
With regard to the delay in Banker’s loss payment, records show that payments were hampered by mistakes the insurer made in issuing checks. The mistakes required the insurer to issue replacements. The lower court found no evidence of deliberate or unreasonable payment delays and the higher court agreed. Accordingly, it found no merit in the Saslows’ misconduct complaint.
In light of its considerations, the higher court affirmed the ruling in favor of Bankers.
Ronald Saslow and Ellen Saslow v. Bankers Standard Insurance—U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—No. 25-1793—May 28, 2026.
