John Burroughs v. AMCO Insurance Company, 690 F.3d 1047

Burroughs was injured in a March 2007 on I-70 driving a tanker; a chain reaction started by a white car caused Burroughs’s collision.
Burroughs sued Mackie Moving Systems and AMCO; he also claimed $25,000 UIM against Zurich underinsurance.
Burroughs settled with Mackie for $295,000 prior to trial; Zurich paid $460,000 to Burroughs and $40,000 to his wife.
Burroughs held three AMCO policies, each with $50,000 UIM coverage, but the district court limited stacking to $25,000 per policy.
Missouri law allows stacking of UIM but the district court applied a $25,000 per-policy ceiling and treated Mackie’s settlement as a credit under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.060.
AMCO cross-appealed alleging improper closing-argument conduct and that Burroughs failed to prove a submissible negligence theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May UIM coverage be stacked above the minimum?	Burroughs argues Missouri allows stacking above $25,000 per policy.	AMCO contends the minimum is the ceiling per policy.	UIM may be stacked above the statutory minimum.
Does § 537.060 allow a credit for the Mackie settlement against AMCO's liability?	Settlement is between tortfeasors; should not reduce AMCO’s contractual liability here.	Settlement reduces the other tortfeasor’s liability, thus reducing AMCO’s exposure under the policy.	Settlement credit against AMCO's liability is proper; reverse and remand on stacking only.
Was there reversible error from Burroughs's counsel closing argument?	Arguments described AMCO as a serial denier and urged affirmance of verdict.	Prejudicial remarks required reversal; district court abused discretion.	District court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error.
Was Burroughs's negligence theory properly submitted to the jury?	White car failed to keep a careful lookout; there was substantial evidence supporting proximate cause.	Evidence did not support a submissible 'careful lookout' theory under Missouri law.	There was substantial evidence; district court did not err in denying JMOL and in instructing the jury.

Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. 2009) (ambiguity favored insured; full UIM policy limits enforced when exclusionary language unenforceable)
Adams v. King, 356 S.W.3d 326 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (stacks above statutory minimum permitted)
Bryan v. Peppers, 323 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (settlement between joint tortfeasors reduces other tortfeasor’s liability)
Richie v. Allied Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. 2009) (jury damages not satisfied by adding UIM and settlement; policy limits apply)
Morrissey v. Welsh Co., 821 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1987) (closing-argument prejudice assessed; Morrissey level reversed if substantial)
Vanskike v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 725 F.2d 1146 (8th Cir. 1984) (standard for evaluating closing-argument prejudice)
Hagedorn v. Adams, 854 S.W.2d 470 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (collateral source rule; no credit against tortfeasor’s judgment)
Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. 2009) (see above (duplicate included for emphasis in list))