Manner v. Schiermeier
2013 Mo. LEXIS 6
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Nathaniel Manner appeals a trial court grant of summary judgment to insurers on underinsured motorist coverage across four policies.
- Insurers did not define “owned” in the policies; Nathaniel’s ownership status is contested but not defined by the policies.
- Nathaniel rode a Yamaha motorcycle whose title remained with his uncle, who retained title at the time of the accident.
- Tortfeasor paid $100,000; Nathaniel’s claimed damages are $1.5 million, leaving $1.4 million unrecovered.
- Each of the four policies provides $100,000 underinsured motorist coverage and includes owned-vehicle and other-insurance provisions.
- Court holds ownership ambiguity favors the insured, stacking is permissible, and no offset against tortfeasor payment is allowed; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of the Yamaha determining exclusion | Stith argues Nathaniel did not own the Yamaha; ownership ambiguous. | Insurers contend Nathaniel owned the Yamaha; exclusion applies. | Ownership ambiguous; exclusion not unambiguously applicable. |
| Whether stacking is permitted across policies | Policies allow stacking; total stacked limits should be used. | Stacking prohibited by anti-stacking clauses. | Stacking permitted; can add up to $400,000. |
| Whether offset reduces stacked UM coverage by tortfeasor payment | Offsets should not reduce the stacked UM limits. | Offsets reduce amounts payable under UM endorsements. | Offset not permitted; full stacked limits recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2010) (burden on insurer to prove exclusion applies; strict construction against drafter)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (read policy as a whole; ambiguity resolved in insured's favor)
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (other-insurance clause; stacking analyzed; ambiguity resolved in insured's favor)
- Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo., 992 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. App. 1999) (interpretation of other-insurance clause; stacking considerations)
- Chamness v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 226 S.W.3d 199 (Mo. App. 2007) (ambiguity when same provisions interact with anti-stacking rules)
- Ragsdale v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 213 S.W.3d 51 (Mo. App. 2007) (excess/other-insurance clause impact on stacking)
- McCormack Baron Mang. Servs. Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. banc 1999) (interpretation of multi-vehicle/other-insurance arrangements)
- Murray v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 429 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2005) (cited for stacking discussion; predated Ritchie, distinguished here)