Becker v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 422 S.W.3d 434

Allied issued a personal auto policy to Robert and Denise Becker insuring five vehicles and added UIM coverage via endorsement.
Declarations Page stated UIM limits as $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, with the word 'per policy' in the UIM column.
On July 11, 2010, Beckers sustained serious injuries in a collision with an underinsured driver (Howdeshell).
Judgments against Howdeshell totaled $6,870,000, but Beckers recovered only $25,000 from Howdeshell's policy.
On December 16, 2011, Beckers demanded $2,166,000 under UIM; Allied tendered $300,000, asserting this was the per-accident limit.
Beckers sought a declaratory judgment on stacking five $100,000 per person limits to reach $2,166,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether policy provides multiple UIM coverages	Beckers argue multiple UIM units exist and may be stacked.	Allied contends only a single UIM unit exists per policy.	Policy provides a single UIM unit per policy.
Whether the policy language permits stacking of UIM	If ambiguity exists, stacking should be allowed in Beckers' favor.	No ambiguity; stacking not permitted because only one UIM limit applies.	Stacking not permitted; no multiple UIM coverages to stack under the policy.

Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 992 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (defines stacking and initial coverage analysis)
Long v. Shelter Ins. Companies, 351 S.W.3d 692 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (uses ordinary-meaning interpretation and tests for ambiguity)
Topps v. City of Country Club Hills, 272 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (focuses on proper interpretation and extrinsic evidence restrictions)
Hall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 407 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (emphasizes ordinary understanding and lack of artificial ambiguity)
Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (insurer-deployed interpretation of policy language and de novo review)