State Farm v Balzan

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for the appellant argued that the statute's use of the singular phrase 'one insured' refers to individual persons, meaning a married couple purchasing policies constitutes two separate insureds who can stack coverage.
2. The court questioned whether interpreting 'one insured' as strictly numerical would render the anti-stacking provision meaningless by allowing any multiple named insureds to always stack policies.
3. Counsel for State Farm argued that joint purchasers using community or shared funds should be treated as a single insured entity to maintain consistency and fairness across different purchasing scenarios.
4. State Farm counsel contended that the anti-stacking provision is the only limitation permitted by the legislature on UIM coverage, and interpreting it narrowly would frustrate its unique purpose.
5. The appellant emphasized that the statute distinguishes between 'persons' (plural) in earlier subsections and 'one insured' (singular) in the anti-stacking subsection, suggesting a deliberate legislative choice to count individuals separately.
6. Counsel for State Farm suggested that focusing on the source of funds or purchase entity avoids complex inquiries into separate property agreements while treating similar factual circumstances consistently.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT59M56S · Captions available