Hammontree v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois
3:15-cv-05091
| W.D. Mo. | Nov 21, 2016Background
- On May 3, 2014 Joseph Hammontree was injured while riding his own motorcycle; compensatory damages exceed $150,000. The tortfeasor's liability carrier paid $50,000.
- Hammontree and his spouse are named insureds on two Safeco policies: an Auto Policy covering two automobiles (UIM limits $100,000/$300,000 per vehicle) and a Motorcycle Policy covering two motorcycles (UIM limits $100,000/$300,000 per motorcycle).
- Safeco paid $100,000 under the Motorcycle Policy’s UIM coverage and refused Hammontree’s demand to stack UIM limits across all four vehicles for a $400,000 recovery.
- Safeco relied on an Auto Policy exclusion (no UIM for injury while occupying an owned motor vehicle that is not insured under the policy) and on anti-stacking language in the Motorcycle Policy.
- Parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment; no facts are disputed and Missouri law governs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Auto Policy provide UIM coverage when the insured was injured in a motorcycle he owned but that was not covered by that Auto Policy? | Hammontree: “motorcycle” is not a “motor vehicle” under the Auto Policy because motorcycles are excluded from the policy’s definition of “your covered auto,” so the exclusion shouldn’t apply. | Safeco: the exclusion bars UIM when an insured occupies an owned motor vehicle not insured under the Auto Policy; motorcycle is plainly a motor vehicle. | Held: Exclusion applies. Motorcycle is a motor vehicle; Auto Policy UIM is not available. |
| Does the Motorcycle Policy permit stacking of UIM limits for the two motorcycles insured under that policy (or across policies)? | Hammontree: declarations show separate premiums/limits for each motorcycle and no anti-stacking language on the declarations page, creating ambiguity that allows stacking. | Safeco: the policy body contains clear anti-stacking provisions and "other insurance" language limiting recovery to the highest limit for any one vehicle; no clause appears to authorize stacking. | Held: Motorcycle Policy unambiguously prohibits stacking; declarations page does not create ambiguity. |
| Is Hammontree’s vexatious-refusal claim viable if no additional UIM is owed? | Hammontree: insurer’s refusal to pay additional UIM could be vexatious. | Safeco: if no additional coverage exists as a matter of law, refusal cannot be vexatious. | Held: Dismissed — refusal not vexatious where insurer was correct as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. 2009) (anti-stacking provisions enforceable if policy language unambiguous)
- Manner v. Shiermeier, 393 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. 2013) (ambiguities resolved for insured; interpret policy as a whole)
- Brooks v. Midwestern Indem. Co., 779 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 2015) (declarations are introductory and subject to policy body; no ambiguity where policy body prohibits stacking)
- Daughhetee v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 743 F.3d 1128 (8th Cir. 2014) (issues arise only where policy contains clauses that both prohibit and appear to authorize stacking)
- Jordan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 741 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2014) (state law governs interpretation of insurance policies in diversity cases)
- Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 439 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. 2014) (declarations give abbreviated terms and must be read with the policy)
- Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co. Ltd., 827 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. 1992) (undefined policy terms are given ordinary lay meaning)