AMCO Insurance Company v. Judith Williams
2017 WL 1018347
8th Cir.2017Background
- Kelly D. Williams was killed in a car accident caused by Dylan A. Meyer; Meyer’s insurer paid its $250,000 liability limit to Kelly’s parents (the Williamses), her sole heirs.
- The Williamses sought $100,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from Kelly’s AMCO auto policy (Declarations list UIM limits: $100,000 per person / $300,000 per accident).
- AMCO sued for a declaratory judgment that Meyer’s vehicle was not an “underinsured motor vehicle” under the policy and thus no UIM coverage was owed; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The policy’s UIM endorsement defines an “underinsured motor vehicle” as one whose bodily-injury liability limit is “less than the limit of liability for this coverage.” The Limit of Liability endorsement contains set-off language reducing UIM by amounts paid by others.
- The district court granted summary judgment for AMCO, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying Missouri law and controlling Missouri Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meyer’s vehicle qualified as an “underinsured motor vehicle” under the policy | Williams: Policy is ambiguous; UIM coverage should apply despite equal/greater tortfeasor payment | AMCO: Policy unambiguously defines underinsured as having liability limits less than UIM limit; Meyer’s $250,000 > $100,000 UIM | Held for AMCO: Meyer’s vehicle not underinsured; no UIM coverage |
| Whether the Declarations page conflicts with the UIM endorsement | Williams: Declarations’ plain $100k UIM limit creates ambiguity | AMCO: Declarations are abbreviated; endorsement controls when read as a whole | Held for AMCO: No ambiguity; policy must be read as whole |
| Whether the Limit of Liability set-off makes coverage illusory/ambiguous | Williams: Set-off reduces UIM to nothing, creating ambiguity | AMCO: Set-off confirms UIM is not excess coverage and does not affect definition of underinsured vehicle | Held for AMCO: Set-off reinforces, not creates, clarity about when UIM triggers |
| Whether other appellate decisions create conflict with Rodriguez controlling precedent | Williams: Post-Rodriguez cases favored insureds on similar wording | AMCO: Rodriguez (Missouri Supreme Court) controls; Eighth Circuit bound to follow it | Held for AMCO: Rodriguez controls; appellate decisions not binding on this court |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (Missouri Supreme Court definition of “underinsured motor vehicle” controls and excludes tortfeasor with equal or greater limits)
- Burger v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2016) (set-off/limit-of-liability language does not create ambiguity about what constitutes a covered underinsured vehicle)
- Owners Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 712 F.3d 392 (8th Cir. 2013) (applied Rodriguez to deny UIM when tortfeasor was not underinsured)
- Munroe v. Cont’l W. Ins. Co., 735 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment and contract interpretation principles)
- Jones v. Mid–Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (discussion of ambiguity where a contract appears to promise coverage then limit it elsewhere)
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (policy interpretation must consider the policy as a whole)