Any provision attempting to reduce coverage below those statutory limits is illegal. Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974); Harthcock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 248 So.2d 456 (Miss. 1971).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Talley, 329 So.2d 52, 54 (Miss. 1976) (quoting Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974)). We have repeatedly held
See McCoy v. South Cen. Bell Tel. Co., 688 So.2d 214, 215-16 (Miss. 1996) (looking to other jurisdictions' view of whether self-insured companies are required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to their employees or lessees); Cossitt, 541 So.2d at 441-42 (relying on interpretations of "analogous" uninsured motorist statutes); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kuehling, 475 So.2d 1159, 1162-63 (Miss. 1985) (looking for guidance to "similar" uninsured motorist statutes which provide for underinsured motorist coverage); Daughdrill, 474 So.2d at 1053-54 (declining to follow interpretations of other states' dissimilar uninsured motorist statutes); Talbot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974) (looking to authority of other states regarding whether insureds, under uninsured motorist policies, can aggregate coverage provided in a single insurance policy which insures more than one vehicle), overruled on other grounds, Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brown, 446 So.2d 1002 (Miss. 1984); Lowery, 285 So.2d at 771-77 (reviewing cases interpreting other states' uninsured motorist statutes and concluding that "the great weight of authority supports the [plaintiff's] contention that the exclusionary clause violates the public policy of this state"); Rampy, 278 So.2d at 432-34 (looking for guidance to interpretations of "similar, if not identical" uninsured motorist statutes); McMinn, 276 So.2d at 685 (treating as "persuasive and enlightening" other uninsured motorist statutes which do not contain the exact phraseology of the UM Act); Harthcock, 248 So.2d at 461-62 (looking to other jurisdictions' interpretation of "other insurance" clause); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Chappell, 246 So.
By stating these two as alternative grounds, the court makes it clear that the rationale behind the "separate premiums are presumptively treated as separate policies" rule is something other than the ambiguity created by the separate listing of premiums. In Brown, the court states that it is adopting the reasoning "set forth in Justice Broom's dissent in" Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974). In Talbot, a majority of the court had held that when the policy contains unambiguous language limiting its U.M. liability, that limitation is effective even though the policy covers more than one automobile and a separate premium is charged for each one.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Talley, 329 So.2d 52, 54 (Miss. 1976) (quoting Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974)). We have repeatedly held
1979) (allowing aggregation of coverage from multiple premiums under one policy).Contra: Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974) (the limitation clause was clear and unambiguous and therefore stacking was denied). Phillips, A guide To Uninsured Motorist Insurance Law in Mississippi, 52 Miss.L.J. 255, 285 (1982).
We are bound by Tucker's assessment of the law of Mississippi that State Farm's provision preventing this windfall is valid, absent any intervening Mississippi case law or statutory amendments. There are three cases that arguably address issues of law similar enough to affect the outcome of this case: Talbot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 291 So.2d 699 (Miss. 1974), Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga, 636 So.2d 658 (Miss. 1994), and Fidelity Guar. Underwriters, Inc. v.Earnest, 699 So.2d 585 (Miss.
Although the Mississippi Supreme Court has never considered the specific issue of workers' compensation, it has consistently refused to allow any reduction of uninsured motorist coverage below the minimum required by statute. Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 703 (Miss. 1974); Harthcock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 248 So.2d 456 (Miss. 1971).
1985); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Talley, 329 So.2d 52, 54 (Miss. 1976); Talbot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 291 So.2d 699, 701 (Miss. 1974). "Over and above legally mandated minimums, the parties have always remained free to agree as they wish.
1986); State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kuehling, 475 So.2d 1159, 1161 (Miss. 1985); Talbot v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 291 So.2d 699, 703 (Miss. 1974). Likewise, our cases provide for the freedom of the insurer and the insured to contract so long as the mandatory statutory requirements are not circumvented. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Federal Ins. Co., 608 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Miss.