Richard McCarthy and Eric Hermanson, attorneys in Edwards Wildman’s Insurance and Reinsurance Department, discussed the ramifications of the Stringfellow ruling in Law360. In the article, “Insurers See Ways Around Calif.’s Landmark Stacking Ruling,” Hermanson commented that the Stringfellow ruling was based on a fairly close reading by the California Supreme Court of the language in the 1966 [standard policy] form and that the Stringfellow holding will not apply automatically to alternate policy language, such as was in effect after 1986. According to Richard McCarthy, while courts in other states have held that anti-stacking provisions are not enforceable because they run counter to public policy, that’s not likely to occur in California. “The stacking decision was really derived from policy language in the absence of anti-stacking language. The court almost went out of its way to provide sort of an express escape hatch with respect to that portion of the ruling,” said McCarthy.