Kennedy v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 757
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kennedy sought to stack UIM benefits under Safeco; district court granted summary judgment; reversal on appeal.
- Safeco policy provides two no-stacking provisions: a general anti-stacking clause and a UIM-specific no-stacking clause stating UIM limits may not be stacked when multiple vehicles or policies apply.
- Kennedy received $50,000 UIM; he claimed the remaining $50,000 could be recovered via stacking because of the policy's other-insurance language.
- Court reviews insurance-coverage decisions de novo, interpreting policy language as a layperson would, enforcing unambiguous anti-stacking terms and constraining ambiguity to the insured-friendly context.
- The policy contains multiple overlapping no-stacking statements, leading the court to assess the document as a whole rather than isolated provisions.
- The court reverses the summary judgment and remands for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation of the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy unambiguously prohibits UIM stacking | Kennedy argues the 'other insurance' clause creates ambiguity allowing stacking | Safeco contends explicit no-stacking provisions clearly prohibit stacking | Yes; policy language unambiguously prohibits stacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 325 S.W.3d 531 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (express no-stacking disclaimer disallows stacking in all instances)
- Hall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 407 S.W.3d 603 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012) (reversing stacking when policy anti-stacking language is clear)
- Ritchie v. Allied Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (interpret policy language as would an average lay policyholder)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguous when other-insurance clause may override anti-stacking language)
- Long v. Shelter Ins. Companies, 351 S.W.3d 692 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (distinguishes policies with/without explicit no-stacking language)
- Chamness v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 226 S.W.3d 199 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007) (promises/then-takes-away framing used to test ambiguity)
- Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., 992 S.W.2d 308 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) (public policy favors stacking for UIM; contrasted with auto anti-stacking)