411 S.W.3d 306
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Christopher Corrigan held a Progressive motorcycle policy that listed two motorcycles (2007 Harley-Davidson, 2009 BMW) and separate UIM premiums; each motorcycle’s declarations page showed a $300,000 combined single limit (CSL) for UIM per accident.
- Corrigan died in a collision while riding the 2007 Harley; tortfeasor’s liability insurance paid $25,000 (policy limits).
- Corrigan’s sons (Appellants) claimed UIM stackable recovery of $600,000 (seeking $300,000 per motorcycle); Progressive paid only $300,000 and denied stacking under the policy.
- Appellants sued for declaratory judgment; both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Progressive’s motion and denied Appellants’. Appellants appealed.
- The core dispute: whether Progressive’s policy unambiguously prohibits stacking of underinsured motorist (UIM) limits across the two covered motorcycles or whether policy language is ambiguous and must be construed for the insured to allow stacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy is ambiguous as to stacking UIM limits | Appellants: differing wording (UM uses “stacked,” UIM does not) and use of undefined term “vehicle” create ambiguity allowing stacking | Progressive: declarations and UIM Limits of Liability unambiguously prohibit combining/stacking; anti‑stacking enforceable for UIM because UIM is optional | Policy is unambiguous; anti‑stacking enforced — no stacking of UIM limits |
| Whether different wording between UM and UIM sections creates ambiguity | Appellants: stronger anti‑stacking phrasing in UM but not in UIM implies stacking allowed for UIM | Progressive: different wording does not create ambiguity; UIM section clearly limits liability regardless of number of covered motorcycles | Different wording insufficient to create ambiguity; UIM language prohibits stacking |
| Whether use of the term “vehicle” (undefined) creates uncertainty for motorcycle policyholders | Appellants: lay reader could think “vehicle” excludes motorcycles, so limits may not apply to motorcycles | Progressive: ordinary meaning of “vehicle” includes motorcycles; term read in context shows intent to bar stacking across any policies/vehicles | “Vehicle” construed as ordinarily understood; does not create ambiguity; applies to motorcycles |
| Whether summary judgment appropriate | Appellants: ambiguity precludes summary judgment for Progressive | Progressive: undisputed facts + unambiguous contract entitle insurer to judgment as a matter of law | Affirmed summary judgment for Progressive; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (UIM coverage optional; stacking governed by contract; unambiguous anti‑stacking provisions enforceable)
- Seeck v. Geico General Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (policy provisions interpreted as a whole; ambiguities resolved for insured)
- Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 368 S.W.3d 174 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (difference in anti‑stacking language across sections does not alone create ambiguity)
- Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. banc 2009) (summary judgment review standard — de novo)
- Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., 827 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1992) (undefined terms in insurance policy given ordinary lay meaning)