The plaintiff was seriously injured in an auto accident. His underinsured motorist policy listed three vehicles separately on the declarations page and also listed $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence under each vehicle and next to each of the three separate UIM premiums. The plaintiff sought to stack the limits of each vehicle. The court stated that the policy contained an anti-stacking provision, an express anti-stacking disclaimer, and an “other insurance” provision. It stated that these three provisions, read together, created ambiguity that must be construed againstthe insurer. Therefore, the court held that stacking the limits of the three vehicles was permitted.