the stacking issue in wrongful death cases on whether the deceased, as the injured person, was occupying an auto that he did not own at the time of the accident. If the deceased was limited to one coverage because he was occupying his own auto, claimants for his wrongful death likewise must share one policy limit. William Shelby McKenzie and H. Alston Johnson, III, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Insurance Law and Practice, 2nd Ed., § 123, p. 303-04. For example, if Andrea had been a passenger in her father’s car, under La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(c)(i), the parents would have only been entitled to recover under one uninsured motorist policy. The same result occurs here where Andrea was a passenger in a non-owned vehicle. Further, it is immaterial that “each parent suf (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Vincent v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 526
holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver holding that a divorced parent of a deceased child may chose to recover wrongful death damages under either her um policy or her exhusbands um policy which ever is more favorable but is prohibited by the antistacking statute from recovering under both policies holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy holding that divorced parent could not stack their separate um policies for the wrongful death of their son because the insured referred to in the antistacking statute is the person who suffers bodily injury or bodily injury which results in death