356 S.W.3d 326
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Victims David, Landon, and La Crysta Adams sued Shelter Mutual and Timothy King over uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- This is the third appeal; prior rulings held the tortfeasor operated an uninsured motor vehicle and addressed UM coverage and damages ($200,000 total).
- Law of the case from Adams v. King governs the uninsured motorist‑vehicle issue on remand.
- Victims had three UM policies: two at $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence and one at $50,000 per person/$100,000 per occurrence, totaling $200,000 per occurrence.
- Damages proved exceed $200,000, so the question is whether stacking to $200,000 is proper and whether any set‑off/applicable credits apply.
- The trial court found ambiguity in the set‑off language, and the court affirms that ambiguity against the insurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law of the case on uninsured vehicle status | Adams argued relitigation of uninsured vehicle status on remand. | King asserted law of the case limited revisiting. | Law of the case prevents re‑litigation of the uninsured vehicle issue. |
| Proper stacking of UM coverages | Stacking should yield $200,000 per occurrence. | Ragsdale cap limits stacking to statutory minimum. | Stacking to $200,000 is proper; no cap imposed by Ragsdale. |
| Set‑off/credit for tortfeasor's out‑of‑state payment | Credit should be allowed for amounts paid by tortfeasor's insurer that reduced damages. | Set‑off language is unambiguous and may limit recovery. | Language ambiguity exists; set‑off resolved against insurer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragsdale v. Armstrong, 916 S.W.2d 783 (Mo. banc 1996) (conducting stacking of UM coverages)
- First Nat. Ins. Co. of America v. Clark, 899 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. banc 1995) (stacking principle for UM policies)
- Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. banc 1976) ( UM stacking rationale)
- Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., 827 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1992) (policy interpretation and stacking)
- Ezell v. Columbia Ins. Co., 942 S.W.2d 913 (Mo. App. S.D.1996) (freedom to contract beyond minimum UM requirements)
- Wolfe v. Harms, 413 S.W.2d 204 (Mo. 1967) (distinguishing special damages and other damages)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (ambiguity resolved in insured's favor; de novo policy interpretation)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguity in policy terms; interpret against insurer)
- Perry State Bank v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 953 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. App. W.D.1997) (when interpreting policy terms, ordinary understanding applies)
- Adams v. King, 275 S.W.3d 324 (Mo. App. S.D.2008) (tortfeasor uninsured vehicle issue resolved; law of the case)