Greer v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 4:16-cv-00935

Background

Ricky Greer was injured on Aug. 2, 2015 while riding his 2015 Harley; the tortfeasor’s insurer tendered $100,000. Greer claims damages > $250,000–$350,000 and demanded underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under two Progressive policies.
Progressive Northwestern issued a Harley policy (Harley Policy) listing the Harley with a $50,000 UIM limit. Progressive Casualty issued a Chevy & Mazda policy (Chevy & Mazda Policy) listing a 1993 Chevy pickup and a 1990 Mazda with $100,000 limits; the Harley was never added to that policy.
Chevy & Mazda Policy defines “auto” as a vehicle with at least four wheels and limits UIM by exclusions (including vehicles owned by or available for regular use of the insured). It also makes clear the declarations are "subject to all terms, conditions, exclusions" elsewhere in the policy.
Progressive denied Greer’s UIM claims under the Chevy & Mazda Policy (arguing Greer was not an insured and the Harley was excluded) and under the Harley Policy (arguing the tortfeasor’s recovery exceeded the Harley UIM limit, so the tortfeasor was not an "underinsured motor vehicle").
Court decided cross-motions for summary judgment: Plaintiff’s partial SJ denied; Defendants’ SJ granted—Greer is not entitled to UIM benefits under either policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chevy & Mazda Policy provides UIM to Greer	Greer contends policy ambiguous and should cover him (e.g., via stacking or because declarations create ambiguity)	Policy unambiguously limits "auto" to 4+ wheels, excludes vehicles owned/regularly used by insured, and Harley was not a covered auto	Held for Progressive Casualty: policy unambiguous; Greer not an insured under its terms, so no UIM recovery
Whether Harley qualifies as a “covered auto” under Chevy & Mazda Policy	Greer argues declarations ambiguous / coverage should apply	Harley not listed as additional or replacement auto; not covered and not an "auto" (fewer than 4 wheels)	Held for Progressive Casualty: Harley not a covered "auto," exclusion applies
Whether tortfeasor’s vehicle was an “underinsured motor vehicle” under Harley Policy	Greer argues ambiguity or that Chevy policy should stack	Harley Policy defines underinsured by comparing tortfeasor limits to Harley UIM limit ($50,000)	Held for Progressive Northwestern: Greer recovered $100,000 from tortfeasor (exceeding Harley $50,000), so tortfeasor was not underinsured — no UIM payout
Whether Fanning v. Progressive controls (declarations-page ambiguity)	Greer relies on Fanning to argue declarations rendered policy ambiguous	Defendants: Fanning is not binding and is distinguishable; declarations here expressly incorporate policy terms, so not ambiguous	Held: Fanning inapposite; policies read as whole are unambiguous in favor of insurers

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 744 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2014) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Burger v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2016) (declinations about Fanning and declarations-page parsing)
Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 439 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. 2014) (declarations are abbreviated; read policy as a whole)
Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. 2009) (ordinary-person meaning governs insurance terms)
McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. 1999) (contract interpretation rules apply to insurance)
Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. 2007) (ambiguity exists when policy language is open to reasonable different constructions)
Fanning v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 412 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (discussed and distinguished by court)