404 S.W.3d 303
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Shauna Young appeals after the trial court denied her summary judgment and granted ASIC declaratory relief that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant William A. Stinson for a fatal collision.
- Defendant drove a 2001 Lincoln LS from the dealership lot after forcibly accessing it on August 14, 2004; Ricky J. Young died in the collision with Plaintiff’s decedent.
- ASIC issued a policy defining Insured person as You or a relative, but excluding any person using the vehicle without the permission of the person having lawful possession.
- ASIC filed a declaratory judgment action in January 2008 seeking no coverage due to the exclusion for non-permissive use.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusionary language was ambiguous; the trial court denied, and later rulings granted ASIC’s summary judgment.
- Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to ASIC, holding the exclusion unambiguous and that Defendant used the Lincoln without permission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 'any person' ambiguous in the exclusion? | Young argues ambiguity favors coverage. | ASIC argues language is clear and unambiguous. | Unambiguous; exclusion applies. |
| Was there genuine issue about Defendant's permission to use the Lincoln? | Implied permission could exist based on conduct. | No implied permission given the express prohibition. | No implied permission; summary judgment proper. |
| Did law-of-the-case doctrine bar reconsideration? | April 1, 2010 order controls law of the case. | October 5, 2011 order properly followed prior rulings. | Trial court properly followed prior rulings; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scheel, 973 S.W.2d 560 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (unambiguous language in non-owned vehicle coverage)
- French v. Miller's Classified Ins. Co., 295 S.W.3d 524 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (ambiguity of 'any person' exclusion discussed)
- LeCave v. Hardy, 73 S.W.3d 637 (Mo.App. E.D.2002) (implicated implied permission in negligent entrustment)
- Hallquist v. Smith, 189 S.W.3d 173 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (reliance on implied permission evidence after prior failures)
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. I-70 Used Cars, Inc., 154 S.W.3d 521 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (implied permission determined from circumstantial evidence)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)