Blumer v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 409
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Blumer was injured in a motorcycle crash caused by an unidentified uninsured driver; damages totaled $225,000.
- Blumer owned a motorcycle not insured under Automobile Club’s policy, but he had two insured vehicles under that policy: a 1990 Dodge Dakota and a 1994 Toyota Camry.
- Progressive Northwestern Insurance provided uninsured motorist coverage for the motorcycle, with $25,000 limits; Automobile Club’s policy also provided UM coverage with $100,000 per person per vehicle.
- Automobile Club advanced $50,000 in UM benefits (two vehicles at $25,000 each) after acknowledging potential invalidity of its exclusion; Blumer dismissed Progressive and proceeded against Automobile Club in a bench trial.
- The circuit court held that Exclusion 3 of Part C of Automobile Club’s policy was invalid to the extent it conflicted with the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, stacking UM limits to total $50,000, and found no further payment due.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of exclusion 3 vs statutory policy | Blumer argues exclusion 3 voids UM coverage when driving a vehicle owned but not insured by the policy. | Automobile Club argues exclusion 3 is unambiguous and enforceable. | Exclusion 3 invalid to the extent it conflicts with §379.203 and public policy. |
| Stacking of UM limits | Blumer is entitled to UM benefits up to $200,000 by stacking per-vehicle coverage. | Automobile Club limits UM exposure; no stacking beyond policy. | Blumer entitled to $50,000 total UM via stacking (minimums per vehicle) under MVFRL. |
| Alignment with Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law | Statutory minimums must be fully available; exclusion cannot override minimums. | Policy terms should be interpreted per contract; exclusions may apply. | Policy exclusion void to extent it conflicts with the statutory minimums; statute controls. |
| Policy interpretation and ambiguity | The exclusion is ambiguous and should be construed in insured’s favor. | Exclusion is clear and unambiguous when read in Part C context. | Policy language deemed unambiguous but invalid due to public policy and statute. |
| Effect of prior payments | Blumer may recover beyond $50,000 if law allows. | Automobile Club has already paid the statutory minimum; no further payment due. | No further UM payment; court’s judgment affirming $50,000 total was correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. Am. States Ins. Co., 671 S.W.2d 777 (Mo. banc 1984) (owned vehicle exclusion invalid against §379.203 public policy)
- Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. banc 1976) (stacking UM benefits across vehicles permissible under policy)
- Halpin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 823 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1992) (MVFRL minimums constrain insureds' expectations of coverage)
- Adams v. Julius, 719 S.W.2d 94 (Mo. App. 1986) (UM protection inures to insured for bodily injury from uninsured tortfeasor)
- Heringer v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 140 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. App. 2004) (general contract-interpretation rules for insurance policies)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (insurance contract interpretation is a legal question reviewed de novo)