Carter v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 135
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 4, 2012, Corey Carter was in an accident while driving a 2002 Chevrolet Impala.
- Two Shelter Mutual policies are at issue: one insuring the Impala (titled to Carter’s mother) and one insuring a 2006 Pontiac Torrent (titled to Carter and his mother).
- The Declarations for both policies list Carter’s mother as the sole “Named Insured”; Carter is listed only as an “Additional Listed Insured.”
- Each policy provides uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in two tiers: Category A ($50,000) for “You,” “Relatives,” and “Additional Listed Insured” (subject to ownership limitations), and Category B ($25,000) for drivers of the described vehicle not in Category A.
- Trial court awarded Carter $50,000 under each policy (total $100,000). Shelter appealed, arguing Carter is only entitled to $25,000 under the Impala policy and not $50,000 under the Torrent policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter qualifies as a Category A insured under the Impala policy (for $50,000) | Carter asserted he is covered under both policies as an Additional Listed Insured and thus entitled to $50,000 each. | Shelter argued Carter cannot be Category A under the Impala because he is not listed as the Named Insured and owns another vehicle, which the Category A subdefinitions exclude. | Carter is not Category A under the Impala; he is Category B and gets $25,000 under the Impala policy. |
| Whether Carter is covered under the Torrent policy in addition to the Impala policy (stacking) | Carter argued both separate UM policies should apply to him, yielding $100,000 total. | Shelter contended the Torrent policy does not cover him because the accident involved the Impala (not the Torrent) and he is not a Named Insured. | The court held Carter qualifies as Category A under the Torrent (he is an Additional Listed Insured and owns no other vehicle besides the Torrent), so he gets $50,000 under the Torrent policy. Both policies apply resulting in $75,000 total. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dutton v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 454 S.W.3d 319 (Mo. banc 2015) (insurance-policy interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 439 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. banc 2014) (declarations page is summary; policy read as a whole; exclusions do not automatically create ambiguity)
- Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. banc 1976) (separate UM policies both may be given effect)
- Adams v. Julius, 719 S.W.2d 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (UM protection inures to the person injured, not the vehicle)
- Melton v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 75 S.W.3d 321 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (policy language given plain meaning)
- Windsor Ins. Co. v. Lucas, 24 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (definitions and exclusions may limit broad grants of coverage if unambiguous)