Adam Dutton v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
2015 Mo. LEXIS 8
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Dutton sought coverage under American Family policies for an accident caused by Hiles’ Nissan Maxima, though the Ford F-250 policy (unrelated to the accident) excluded coverage for other owned but undesignated vehicles.
- Barbara Hiles owned both a Nissan Maxima and a Ford F-250 with separate identical American Family policies, each with $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident limits.
- The May 25, 2009 crash involved the Nissan; the Ford was not involved.
- Dutton settled with Nissan policy for $25,000 and assigned Hiles’ Ford policy rights.
- The Ford policy excluded use of other owned but undesignated vehicles; the trial court granted American Family’s summary judgment; the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.
- MVFRL requires minimum coverage on designated or operated vehicles, not unlisted owned vehicles; no stacking issue arose because Ford provides no coverage in this scenario.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MVFRL require Ford policy to cover Nissan accident? | Dutton argues MVFRL mandates $25,000 coverage on Ford | American Family argues no coverage due to designated-vehicle exclusion | No; MVFRL does not require coverage on an unlisted owned vehicle under the Ford policy |
| Are designated vehicles strictly limited to those expressly listed in the owner’s policy? | Dutton relies on broad coverage to include all passenger cars | Ford policy excludes non-designated owned vehicles | Yes; designated vehicles only are covered under owner’s policy; exclusions control |
| Does MVFRL require operator’s coverage to apply to use of non-owned cars? | Dutton seeks operator’s coverage for Nissan under Ford policy | Operator’s coverage applies only to use of non-owned vehicles | No; Ms. Hiles owned both vehicles; operator’s coverage does not compel Ford to cover Nissan |
| Does the MVFRL supplement the Ford policy to read in coverage up to $25,000 despite exclusions? | MVFRL reads into the policy to require minimum coverage | Policy exclusions cannot be read away by MVFRL | No; MVFRL may read into the policy up to minimum limits only where consistent with policy terms |
| Are Hargrave or Karscig controlling in this owned-vehicles context? | Hargrave/Karscig require coverage despite exclusions | Distinguishable; both involved non-owned vehicles or different policy structure | Not controlling; facts here involve two owned vehicles with explicit exclusion for undesignated vehicles |
Key Cases Cited
- Karscig v. McConville, 303 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. banc 2010) (operator’s vs owner’s policy; non-owned vehicle coverage analysis)
- Hargrave v. Am. Std. Ins. Co., 34 S.W.3d 88 (Mo. banc 2000) (minimum MVFRL coverage for use of non-owned vehicle; household exclusions considered)
- Cashon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 190 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. App. 2006) (MVFRL minimum coverage supplements policies)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 477 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. banc 1972) (drive other cars rationale; distinction of coverage types)
- Todd v. Missouri United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2007) (policies read as a whole; exclusions matter)