Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Bresler, 4:16-cv-01402

Defendant Megan Bresler was injured in a 2015 auto accident and recovered $250,000 from the tortfeasor's insurer and $1,000,000 from the vehicle she was driving.
Bresler sought $100,000 of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under her Allied policy, claiming her damages exceeded the tortfeasor's $250,000 limit.
Allied's policy defines an “underinsured motor vehicle” as one whose bodily-injury liability limit is less than the UIM coverage limit; the policy’s UIM limit is $100,000.
Because the tortfeasor’s limit ($250,000) exceeds Bresler’s $100,000 UIM limit, Allied argued the tortfeasor was not an underinsured motorist and no UIM payment is due.
Bresler argued the policy’s other provisions (per-person/per-accident limits and set-off language) create ambiguity and effectively promise $100,000 of UIM coverage reduced by payments from the tortfeasor.
Allied moved for summary judgment; the court analyzed policy language under Missouri law and granted Allied summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the tortfeasor’s vehicle qualifies as an “underinsured motor vehicle” under the policy	The tortfeasor’s $250,000 limit exceeds the policy’s $100,000 UIM limit, so the vehicle is not underinsured	Policy language as a whole is ambiguous; other provisions show $100,000 UIM applies and is reduced by tortfeasor payments	The definition is unambiguous: underinsured requires tortfeasor limit < UIM limit; no coverage here
Whether set-off/reduction clauses create an ambiguity that would permit UIM recovery despite the definition	Definition controls; set-off language does not create ambiguity about whether coverage exists	The set-off and limit provisions create duplicity and ambiguity about amount payable	The set-off provisions do not render the definition ambiguous; any inconsistency about amount after coverage attaches is immaterial to whether coverage exists

Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 368 U.S. 464 (1962) (summary judgment standard citation)
John Deere Ins. Co. v. Shamrock Indus., Inc., 929 F.2d 413 (8th Cir. 1991) (insurance policy interpretation amenable to summary judgment)
Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (UIM coverage determined by contract)
Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 853 S.W.2d 300 (Mo. banc 1993) (policy interpretation follows contract principles)
Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (definition of ambiguity in insurance policies)
Floyd–Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 439 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. banc 2014) (definitions/exclusions enforceable if clear in context)
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Morton, 140 F. Supp. 3d 856 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (if policy language unambiguous, enforce as written)
Burger v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2016) (inconsistency about amount payable immaterial to whether coverage exists)