Long v. Shelter Insurance Companies
351 S.W.3d 692
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Decedent Vernie Long suffered fatal injuries after a Dray vehicle collided with Decedent’s Ford F-350; decedent’s surviving spouse Carol Long represents a wrongful death class seeking UIM benefits under seven Shelter policies.
- Dray carried $50,000 per-person liability insurance, paid to the wrongful death class, releasing Dray from further liability.
- Shelter issued seven UIM policies to Long and Decedent, with one policy at $100,000 per person and six policies at $50,000 per person.
- Dispute centers on (i) stacking seven Shelter UIM policies for total $400,000 and (ii) whether a $50,000 tortfeasor payment can be set off against UIM limits.
- Trial court granted Long judgment for stack and against Shelter; Shelter appeals.
- Missouri appellate court affirms, holding ambiguity exists in Shelter’s UIM language and requiring stacking and correct set-off calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shelter’s policies ambiguously allow stacking of UIM limits. | Long argues ambiguity permits stacking all seven UIM policies. | Shelter contends anti-stacking and set-off provisions unambiguously limit to a single policy. | Ambiguity found; stacking permitted. |
| Whether the $50,000 tortfeasor payment can be set off against UIM limits across all policies. | Long contends set-off does not defeat stacking; damages remain $400,000. | Shelter argues set-off reduces each policy’s UIM limit. | Set-off applied to determine unpaid damages, allowing full stacking up to $400,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chamness v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 226 S.W.3d 199 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (ambiguity when other-insurance and excess clauses conflict; stacking favored for insured)
- Lynch v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 325 S.W.3d 531 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (distinguishes Lynch from current policy language; anti-stacking analysis different)
- Ritchie v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (set-off ambiguity resolved in favor of coverage; stacking permitted when language conflicts)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (set-off ambiguities resolved in favor of coverage; directs set-off method)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguity resolved in insured's favor when policy terms conflict)
- Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo., 992 S.W.2d 308 (Mo.App. E.D.1999) (UIM coverage is floating; ambiguities resolved for insured)
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (UIM coverage not compelled by statute; contract defines scope)