06.15.2026

Anti-Stacking Provisions – Seventh Circuit (Illinois Law)

Saslow v. Bankers Standard Ins.
No. 25-1793, 2026 WL 1488046 (7th Cir. May 28, 2026)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ grant of summary judgment in favor of Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers Standard) and against Ronald and Ellen Saslow (the Saslows). The Saslows sought a declaratory judgment that Bankers Standard owed additional payments for, among other things, medical expenses and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage by stacking certain limits in the auto policy. The trial court rejected the Saslows’ arguments, ruling in favor of Bankers Standard, and the appellate court affirmed.

Ronald Saslow and a passenger were injured in a car accident. The Saslows held an automobile policy and an umbrella policy with Bankers Standard. The auto policy provided medical expenses coverage with a limit of $100,000 per person and UM/UIM coverage with a limit of $500,000 per occurrence. It stated that Bankers Standard would “pay up to your medical expenses coverage limit” and that the stated amount was “the most we’ll pay for each person injured in any one vehicle accident, no matter how many people or vehicles were involved.” Similarly, for UM/UIM coverage, the policy stated that Bankers Standard would “pay up to your coverage limit for that coverage” and that the stated amount was “the most we’ll pay for each occurrence, no matter how many people or vehicles were involved.” The policy defined “coverage limit” as “the most we’ll pay for an occurrence or loss” and “occurrence” as “the accident that causes bodily injury, property damage or loss.” The declarations page listed five insured vehicles, with coverage limits appearing across two pages because all five vehicles’ information could not fit on one page.

Ronald Saslow was also covered by a follow-form umbrella policy, which provided excess UM/UIM coverage up to $1 million per occurrence. The umbrella policy stated that this limit was the most Bankers Standard would pay “regardless of the number of insured persons, claims made, persons injured, locations insured, or vehicles or watercraft involved in an occurrence.” After the accident, the Saslows received $879,832 from the other driver. Bankers Standard ultimately paid $100,000 for medical expenses under the auto policy and $1 million in UM/UIM coverage under the umbrella policy.

The Saslows contended they could “stack” their coverages and collect the per-vehicle coverage limit separately for each of the five insured vehicles by pointing to the fact that the declarations page listed the coverage limits twice and they paid separate premiums for each vehicle. Applying Illinois law, which enforces unambiguous insurance policies as written and treats policies as ambiguous only if susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the appellate court held that both policies contained unambiguous anti-stacking language. The auto policy’s definitions and its “no matter how many people or vehicles were involved” language, together with the other-insurance clause, clearly barred stacking. The appellate court rejected the argument that listing limits on two declarations pages created ambiguity, reasoning that the only reasonable explanation for the repetition was that all five vehicles’ information could not fit on one physical page. As to the umbrella policy, the court found that the $1 million per-occurrence language and the broad “regardless of” clause likewise prohibited stacking.

By: Joshua LaBar

---

Discovery – Colorado

Pinto v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n
--- P.3d ----, 2026 WL 1649368, 2026 CO 44

On Dec. 20, 2020, Samantha Pinto (Pinto) was in an automobile accident, and suffered various injuries.  As a result of the accident, Pinto received full policy limits from the other involved driver’s insurance. Pinto had a policy with United Services Automobile Association (USAA) which included uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. Pinto filed a UM claim, but USAA declined, explaining that it valued the claim at the amount Pinto had already received from the other involved driver’s insurance. Pinto filed suit against USAA, asserting breach of contract for UM benefits under the policy. As part of discovery in that action, USAA requested Pinto’s unredacted medical records, documents regarding a separate insurance claim from a later accident, and an Independent Medical Examination (IME). Pinto challenged USAA’s discovery requests. The trial court determined that the discovery sought by USAA was relevant to Pinto's claim, and, therefore, discoverable. Pinto requested review from the Supreme Court of Colorado.

On review, the Supreme Court examined whether Schultz v. GEICO Cas. Co., 2018 CO 87, 429 P.3d 844, which holds that in analyzing a bad faith claim, a court’s review of an insurer's decision, is limited to the materials or evidence that were available to the insurer at the time it made its decision, precluded USAA from seeking evidence that was unavailable at the time it made its coverage decision. The Supreme Court found that Schultz does not extend to breach of contract claims because, unlike a claim for bad faith, the reasonableness of the insurer's conduct is not at issue. The Supreme Court also found that the discovery sought by USAA was otherwise relevant to Pinto’s claim. As such, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in compelling production of the discovery sought by USAA.

By: Danielle Chidiac