Jaudes v. Progressive Preferred Insurance, 11 F. Supp. 3d 943

Jaudes was injured in a 2010 collision with Cook; Cook’s liability policy paid $50,000.
Jaudes carried Progressive auto policy with $50,000 per person UIM across three owned vehicles.
Jaudes demanded $150,000 under UIM; Progressive refused.
Progressive moved for summary judgment; Jaudes cross-moved, citing stacking and ambiguity.
Declarations page lists $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident UIM for each vehicle and prohibits stacking.
Court concludes Progressive may not stack, and Cook’s vehicle does not meet the UIM definition; grants summary for Progressive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stacking of UIM coverage permitted?	Jaudes argues stacking allowed by policy/precedent.	Progressive asserts anti-stacking language is unambiguous.	Stacking not allowed under policy terms.
Definition of underinsured motor vehicle satisfied?	Jaudes contends ambiguity permits coverage.	Progressive argues definition unambiguous and not met by Cook's vehicle.	Cook's vehicle does not meet the definition.
Does any policy provision inject ambiguity creating excess coverage?	Jaudes cites Other Insurance and related clauses.	Progressive argues no ambiguity; Rodriguez controls.	No ambiguity; coverage not excess; summary for Progressive.

Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. 1991) (definitive UIM language enforceable as written)
Hughes v. Owners Ins. Co., 712 F.3d 392 (8th Cir. 2013) (confirms Rodriguez and ambiguity depends on other provisions)
Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. 2007) (excess/other-insurance clause may create ambiguity)
Fanning v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 412 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (ambiguity due to declarations/insuring agreement/limits language; excess coverage)
Clark v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 92 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) ( Other Insurance clause may permit stacking in some scenarios)