Yes. Oklahoma, unlike many states, allows an insured to stack or combine coverage from multiple UM/UIM policies when separate premiums have been paid for each.

Uninsured motorist (UM) and under-insured motorist (UIM) insurance pays victims of car crashes for medical bills and property damage when the at-fault driver either has no insurance or has insurance in an amount that is insufficient to cover the damages involved.

Stacking UM/UIM coverages means you are able to collect from more than one car insurance policy to receive full payment for your injuries and property damage.

Example 1:

You own an auto insurance policy under which two or more cars are insured with UM/UIM coverage. When you’re hit by an uninsured or underinsured driver, you collect the limits of your UM/UIM coverage under as many vehicles as necessary to receive full payment for your damages. For example, if you have a two-car policy with $50,000 worth of bodily injury UM/UIM coverage per person on each car, you can collect up to $100,000.

Example 2:

You own more than one auto insurance policy with UM/UIM coverage. (The policies could be with the same insurer or two different insurers.) To collect all of the damages, you could make a claim under the UM/UIM coverage of each of the insurance policies you own. For example, if you have one policy with $50,000 worth of UM/UIM bodily injury coverage per person and another policy with $25,000 worth of UM/UIM bodily injury coverage, you can collect up to $75,000 for any injury you suffer as a result of a collision with an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

Insurance companies have argued against and sought to deny their policy holders the ability to stack UM/UIM coverage. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that to prohibit stacking would be against Oklahoma public policy and repugnant to our uninsured motorist statute.

In Keel v. MFA Insurance Co., the court said:

“By imposition of both policies, the insured is not receiving a windfall. He has paid the insurer a premium for this protection, and is only attempting to recover the actual amount of his damages which are within the limits of both policies. On the other hand, the insurer has collected a premium for each policy. In such instance, it would be manifestly unjust to permit the insurer to avoid its statutorily imposed liability … which would deny the insured from receiving that for which he has paid a premium.”