348 S.W.3d 68
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ware obtained a $175,000 wrongful-death judgment against Mendota's insured, Johnson.
- Mendota issued Johnson an auto policy with a Declarations page showing Bodily Injury per-person limit of $25,000 and per-accident limit $50,000, but with a mis-typed letter 'A' next to Property Damage.
- Ware argued the Declarations error created an ambiguity allowing unlimited bodily injury coverage.
- Mendota filed a declaratory-judgment action asserting the policy has a $25,000 per-person limit for bodily injury and is unambiguous.
- The trial court granted Mendota summary judgment; Ware appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Declarations misprint create an ambiguity? | Ware: misprint makes no monetary limit, requiring pro-coverage interpretation. | Mendota: misprint is blatant and not reasonably open to two constructions; policy limits remain $25,000 per person. | No ambiguity; per-person limit is $25,000. |
| If ambiguous, does Ware's reading align with reasonable expectations? | Ware: interpretation in her favor would provide unlimited coverage. | Mendota: even if ambiguous, Ware's reading is inconsistent with objective expectations and policy structure. | Even assuming ambiguity, Ware's interpretation is not reasonable; limit remains $25,000 per person. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2010) (ambiguities reviewed de novo; insured favored only for reasonable interpretations)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguity defined; reading language as a lay person)
- Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Raymond, 634 A.2d 1015 (N.H. 1993) (typographical error not creating ambiguity; lay reader notice)
- Behrens v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y.2d 2001) (typographical error not creating ambiguity where policy meaning clear)
- Smith v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 904 P.2d 749 (Wash. 1995) (clarifying impact of apparent typographical errors on ambiguity)
- Kennedy v. Hosp. Serv. Corp., 455 N.E.2d 206 (Ill. App. 1983) (clerical errors do not necessarily create ambiguity)
- Crossman v. Yacubovich, 290 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (ambiguous policy resolved in insured's favor when reasonable)
- Miller v. O'Brien, 168 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (read the policy as a whole; avoid isolating phrases)