John Gohagan v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 53
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Jan 2012 a tree fell on John Gohagan; he and his wife settled claims with Thomas Campbell and received $1,000,000 under Campbell’s Cincinnati-issued CGL policy.
- The Gohagans reserved the right to seek additional coverage under a separate Cincinnati-issued Business Owners Package (BOP) policy that also had a $1,000,000 each-occurrence limit.
- Cincinnati argued the BOP did not apply (coverage tied to specified Waynesville premises) and that both policies’ anti-stacking clauses prevented stacking of coverage issued by the same insurer.
- Parties filed a joint complaint for declaratory judgment and cross-motions for summary judgment; the district court granted Cincinnati’s motion based on the anti-stacking provisions.
- The district court held that when two policies issued by Cincinnati cover the same occurrence, the combined coverage cannot exceed the highest applicable per-occurrence limit under any one policy ($1,000,000 here).
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding the anti-stacking language unambiguous and construing the ‘‘Other Insurance’’ clauses as applying only when other insurers (not the same insurer) are involved.
Issues
| Issue | Gohagan's Argument | Cincinnati's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOP and CGL anti-stacking provisions are ambiguous about "aggregate maximum limit of insurance" | Phrase is ambiguous; a buyer would read "aggregate maximum" as the $2,000,000 general aggregate, allowing stacking to reach $2,000,000 | The phrase, read with the rest of the clause, limits combined coverage to the highest applicable per-occurrence limit ($1,000,000) | Anti-stacking clause unambiguous; combined coverage capped at $1,000,000 |
| Whether the "Other Insurance" provisions create coverage that conflicts with anti-stacking (creating ambiguity) | "Other Insurance" provides primary coverage and a sharing method, implying each policy contributes, so anti-stacking cannot negate that coverage | "Other Insurance" governs multiple insurers; the "Two or More Policies Issued by Us" clause controls when the same insurer issued both policies | Court: "Other Insurance" applies to multiple insurers; anti-stacking clause governs same-insurer policies; no ambiguity |
| Whether coverage under BOP was limited to injuries arising out of specified Waynesville premises | Gohagans reserved the right to litigate BOP geographic applicability | Cincinnati: BOP limited to injury from specified premises so BOP may not apply | Court did not decide this issue because anti-stacking resolution made extra BOP coverage unnecessary |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Gohagans sought coverage and disputed interpretation | Cincinnati moved for summary judgment based on anti-stacking clause | Affirmed: summary judgment for Cincinnati because clause unambiguously bars stacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Northland Cas. Co. v. Meeks, 540 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.) (de novo review of policy interpretation)
- Secura Ins. v. Horizon Plumbing, Inc., 670 F.3d 857 (8th Cir.) (read policy provisions in context to ascertain parties’ intent)
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors Serv., Inc., 751 F.3d 880 (8th Cir.) (language is ambiguous only if reasonably open to different constructions)
- McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.) (interpretation of insurance policy is a question of law)
- Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo.) (ambiguous policy language construed against insurer)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo.) (conflict between clauses creating coverage can render policy ambiguous)
- Smith v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 977 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. Ct. App.) (applying nearly identical anti-stacking clause to limit combined liability to highest applicable limit)