Joshua Munroe v. Continental Western Insurance
735 F.3d 783
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Munroe was injured while operating his employer’s tractor-trailer; he and his wife settled with the tortfeasors.
- They sought UIM coverage under the employer’s commercial auto policy from Continental.
- Declarations and endorsements show a $500,000 UIM limit and a $2,000,000 bodily injury limit; an endorsement sets $500,000 UIM per accident.
- A Selection/Rejection form was blank when issued; the employer later signed selecting $500,000 UIM.
- Continental moved for partial summary judgment; the district court held no stacking and treated UIM limit as $2,000,000 due to ambiguity, which the Munroes cross-appealed on stacking.
- The court reviews the policy de novo and interprets Missouri contract and insurance-law principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the correct UIM limit under the policy? | Munroe contends the form creates ambiguity and allows $2,000,000. | Continental asserts the declarations and endorsement fix a $500,000 limit; the blank form does not change it. | UIM limit is $500,000 per accident; no ambiguity. |
| Does the anti-stacking provision properly limit recovery to $500,000 per accident? | Munroes argue the provision is ambiguous and allows six claims. | Continental argues the provision unambiguously caps all damages per accident at $500,000. | Anti-stacking provision unambiguously caps liability at $500,000 per accident. |
| Are multiple accidents or a single continuous accident applicable for stacking analysis? | Munroe contends three accidents under the policy’s terms. | Continental argues all injuries stem from a single event or continuous exposure. | Single accident under the policy; no stacking. |
| Is the interlocutory appeal jurisdiction valid given timing of the cross-petition? | Munroes argue timely cross-appeal not required for review under 1292(b). | Continental argues cross-appeal timing is essential for jurisdiction. | The stacking issue is reviewable; cross-appeal timing does not bar jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. banc 2009) (inconsistent policy provisions create ambiguity in coverage)
- Browning v. GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co., 341 S.W.3d 897 (Mo. App. 2011) (declarations control when no change by later forms)
- Christensen v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 307 S.W.3d 654 (Mo. App. 2010) (declarations page informs coverage terms; later changes must reflect intent)
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (ambiguity resolved in insured’s favor when provisions conflict)
- Haulers Ins. Co. v. Wyatt, 170 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. App. 2005) (define accident and apply anti-stacking across vehicles/injured)
- Kansas Fire & Cas. Co. v. Koelling, 729 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. App. 1987) (cause vs. effect approach for accidents under policy limits)