By: Nathan Andrews
On July 6, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court held that multiple individuals who jointly purchase multiple insurance policies from the same insurer constitute “one insured” for the purposes of the anti-stacking provisions of A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H). Thus, an insurance company may prohibit a claimant from stacking multiple policies jointly purchased by multiple individuals from the same insurer.
Arizona’s Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Act (“UM / UIM”) allows an individual covered by more than one automobile insurance policy to collect benefits from multiple policies, i.e. “stack” the UM / UIM benefits unless the insurer strictly complies with the terms of A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H).[1] In 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court held that insurers seeking to prevent the stacking of UIM coverages under a single multi-vehicle insurance policy can only do so by following the terms of A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H). Franklin v. CSAA General Insurance Co.,255 Ariz. 409 (2023). More recently, however, a claimant attempted to stack UIM benefits across multiple insurance policies issued to multiple insured individuals who jointly purchased the policies. State Farm Mutual Automobile v. Balzan, CV-24-0140-PR (Ariz. July 6, 2026).
The plaintiff, Connor Balzan, argued that multiple insured individuals do not constitute “one insured” under the statute, A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H), in his attempt to stack the benefits of multiple policies. Arizona’s Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that joint purchasers of multiple policies from the same insurer constitute “one insured” under the statute.
Mr. Balzan was injured in an automobile accident on April 5, 2019, and sustained injuries leading to medical expenses that exceeded the responsible party’s insurance coverage. Mr. Balzan thereafter sought UIM benefits from his insurer, State Farm. Mr. Balzan argued that he was entitled to the UIM benefits of his own policy as well as the stacked benefits of four policies purchased by his parents because he was part of their household at the time of the underlying collision.
State Farm paid Mr. Balzan the UIM benefits of his own policy and one of his parents’ policies, in line with A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H). Despite this, Mr. Balzan argued that he was entitled to the benefits of the three additional policies because each individual who contributed to paying the policy premium constituted a separate purchaser and, therefore, a separate insured. Interestingly, the trial court, Arizona Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all rejected this position, albeit for somewhat different reasons. Balzan, ¶¶ 5–7.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Balzan’s argument because it would undermine the statute’s language and “leave insurers unable to determine the scope of subsection (H) from the policy itself.” Balzan, ¶ 19. Instead, the Supreme Court held that all named insureds on a policy constitute “one insured” for the purposes of the anti-stacking provisions of § 20-259.01(H). Thus, insurers can continue to limit stacking according to the terms of that subsection, even in cases of multiple individuals who jointly purchase a policy, such as a married couple.
Read the entire opinion here.
[1] The full text of subsection (H) reads: “Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages are separate and distinct and apply to different accident situations. Underinsured motorist coverage shall not provide coverage for a claim against an uninsured motorist in addition to any applicable uninsured motorist coverage. If multiple policies or coverages purchased by one insured on different vehicles apply to an accident or claim, the insurer may limit the coverage so that only one policy or coverage, selected by the insured, shall be applicable to any one accident. If the policy does not contain a statement that informs the insured of the insured’s right to select one policy or coverage as required by this subsection, within thirty days after the insurer receives notice of an accident, the insurer shall notify the insured in writing of the insured’s right to select one policy or coverage. For the purposes of this subsection, “insurer” includes every insurer within a group of insurers under a common management.”
About Christian, Dichter & Sluga
Christian, Dichter & Sluga is a nationally recognized insurance and litigation law firm providing sophisticated legal solutions throughout Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. For nearly 50 years, our attorneys have represented insurers, businesses, and organizations in complex coverage disputes, bad faith matters, litigation, and aviation-related claims. What sets CDS apart is the combination of deep courtroom experience, peer-recognized legal talent, and a collaborative approach that delivers the resources of a larger firm with the responsiveness and personal attention clients value. We don’t just know the law – we know the communities, courts, and industries we serve, allowing us to provide strategic counsel and outstanding results when our clients need it most.
The purpose of this publication is to provide readers with information on current topics of general interest and nothing herein shall be construed to create, offer, or memorialize the existence of an attorney-client relationship. The content should not be considered legal advice or opinion, because it may not apply to the specific facts of a particular matter. As guidance in areas is constantly changing and evolving, you should consider checking for updated guidance, or consult with legal counsel, before making any decisions.
