Jensen v. Allstate Insurance Co.
349 S.W.3d 369
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Woodrow Jensen and Mildred Jensen, both named insureds, were injured in a 2004 auto accident with an ambulance; policy liability limit was $50,000 per person.
- Allstate offered $25,000 arguing the policy’s household exclusion caps claims by household relatives at the MVFRL minimum ($25,000).
- Mildred sued Woodrow’s estate; a circuit court judgment against the estate was $616,000 for Mildred’s injuries, and a garnishment action was brought against Allstate for $50,000.
- The circuit court concluded the household exclusion did not apply to Mildred, finding ambiguity and construing the policy in favor of the insured.
- Allstate challenged the judgment on appeal, arguing the household exclusion is unambiguous and limits coverage to $25,000; the court reversed, holding the exclusion unambiguous and controlling.
- The appellate opinion ultimately holds that Allstate’s household exclusion unambiguously limits coverage to the MVFRL minimum of $25,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the household exclusion cap Mildred’s recovery at $25,000? | Jensen: exclusion ineffective against Mildred’s recovery. | Allstate: exclusion unambiguously caps at $25,000 for household relatives. | Exclusion unambiguous; limits coverage to $25,000. |
| Is the garnishment judgment final and appealable despite remaining claims? | Mildred: garnishment judgment final as to coverage issue. | Allstate: finality should await all claims adjudicated. | Court has authority; garnishment judgment final as to coverage issue. |
| Should ambiguity be resolved in the insured’s favor under Missouri law? | Jensen: ambiguities resolved in insured’s favor. | Allstate: language unambiguous; no ambiguity exists. | No ambiguity; exclusion unambiguously limits to $25,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Versaw v. Versaw, 202 S.W.3d 638 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (household exclusion can be ambiguous when contextually inconsistent with defined terms)
- Kearbey v. Kinder, 972 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App. 1998) (household exclusion clearly limits coverage to MVFRL minimum; unambiguous)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (interpretation of insurance contracts; ambiguities resolved in favor of insured)
- Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2010) (ambiguity standard for insurance policy interpretation; construct in favor of insured)
- Halpin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 823 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1992) (household exclusion may limit coverage to MVFRL minimum)