DeMeo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9121
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Marie DeMeo was injured by Patrick McGinness driving his daughter's pickup in a marked crosswalk.
- McGinness carried four State Farm liability policies, each with $50,000 limits and an anti-stacking provision.
- McGinness's daughter's insurer paid $100,000 under her policy; State Farm paid $50,000 under one policy.
- DeMeo sought equitable garnishment to recover an additional $150,000, the combined limits of the other three policies.
- The district court granted DeMeo summary judgment, allowing stacking; State Farm appealed.
- The question presented required interpreting two State Farm policy provisions: an anti-stacking clause and an excess-coverage clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of anti-stacking vs. excess clause | DeMeo argues excess clause creates ambiguity permitting stacking. | State Farm argues anti-stacking is unambiguous and controls, no ambiguity. | Excess clause not creating ambiguity; anti-stacking enforced. |
| MVFRL compliance impact on stacking | Anti-stacking conflicts with MVFRL minimums, should allow more coverage. | MVFRL permits excess coverage after meeting minimums; anti-stacking remaining valid. | Issue remanded for district court to decide in first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hempen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 687 S.W.2d 894 (Mo. Banc. 1985) (anti-stacking enforcement when no statute/public policy requires excess)
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. Banc. 2009) (ambiguity questions in stacking contexts under Missouri law)
- Durbin v. Deitrick, 323 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. App. 2010) (excess-coverage interpretations in non-owned vehicle context)
- Otto v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 964 S.W.2d 472 (Mo. App. 1998) (specific/antecedent reference in excess coverage)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sommers, 954 S.W.2d 18 (Mo. App. 1997) (excess coverage reasoning in related context)
- Lynch v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 325 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. App. 2010) (clarity of policy language where not redundant)
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. Banc. 1991) (rejection of creating ambiguity to distort policy language)
- American Standard Ins. Co. v. Hargrave, 34 S.W.3d 88 (Mo. Banc. 2000) (minimum MVFRL coverage considerations)
- Karscig v. McConville, 303 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. Banc. 2010) (public policy and stacking related to MVFRL)