Browning v. Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Co.
341 S.W.3d 897
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Linda and Lyle Browning were injured when Hagston crossed the center line, causing their motorcycle to run off the road.
- Hagston carried State Farm liability insurance with limits of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident; Linda Browning settled with State Farm for $100,000, exhausting Hagston's liability coverage.
- Plaintiffs held a GuideOne motorcycle policy containing a UM endorsement and alleged UIM coverage of $50,000 per person/$300,000 per accident.
- Plaintiffs sued GuideOne for coverage under UIM and for vexatious refusal to pay under Section 375.420; the trial court found ambiguity in the policy and awarded relief to Plaintiffs.
- The trial court concluded the policy was ambiguous and construed it in Plaintiffs’ favor, awarding statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees totaling over $114,000.
- On appeal, GuideOne challenged the ambiguity ruling and the related remedies; the Western District reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the GuideOne policy ambiguous regarding UIM coverage? | Browning contends UM/UDM language creates ambiguity supporting UIM coverage. | GuideOne argues the policy is unambiguous and does not provide UIM coverage. | Policy is not ambiguous; no UIM coverage exists. |
| If no UIM coverage, are penalties and fees for vexatious refusal proper? | Plaintiffs rely on Section 375.420 to recover penalties, interest, and fees. | Because no UIM coverage exists, relief under §375.420 should be unavailable. | Penalties, interest, and fees are vacated; remand for consistent relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 307 S.W.3d 654 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (policy language and declarations control; not all gaps imply coverage)
- Ritchie v. Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (stated issues around stacking/other-insurance provisions)
- Foremost Signature Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 266 S.W.3d 868 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (interpretation of insurance policies; ambiguity standard)
- Shirkey v. Guarantee Trust & Life Ins. Co., 258 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (vexatious-refusal principles; not liable for mere adverse outcome)
- Todd v. Missouri United School Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2007) (insurance policy interpretation: ambiguity resolves in insured's favor)