Stokes v. Progressive Security Insurance Company of Louisiana
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
2023 WL 1997793 (2023)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Mississippi resident Alfred Stokes (plaintiff) was a passenger in a car driven by Louisiana resident Leroy Matthews when the car was rear-ended by a hit-and-run driver in Mississippi. Leroy was covered by an insurance policy issued to Louisiana resident Cynthia Matthews by Progressive Security Insurance Company of Louisiana (Progressive) (defendant). The policy had been obtained through an independent Louisiana insurance agency and had been negotiated and delivered in Louisiana. It covered four cars owned by Cynthia, including the one Leroy was driving at the time of the accident. Stokes sued Progressive, seeking to recover uninsured-motorist benefits to compensate for injuries incurred in the accident. He claimed that he was entitled to stack benefits, combining the uninsured-motorist limits across the four vehicles covered by the policy to recover $100,000. Although Mississippi law favored stacking insurance policies to provide maximum coverage for injured parties, Louisiana law expressly prohibited such stacking. Progressive moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana law applied to the stacking issue and Stokes could therefore recover only up to the $25,000 limit allocated to the car in which he was injured. Stokes did not file a response. The court considered the motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 907,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 996 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
