Nationwide Insurance Company of America v. Patrice Thomas, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 26

Respondent was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her son-in-law, Brandt Jefferson, involved in a collision on December 12, 2013, with Edward Close who was at fault.
Close’s bodily injury liability limit was $100,000 per person under another insurer’s policy.
Jefferson carried Nationwide Insurance Company of America policy that included underinsured motorist (UM) coverage of $50,000 per person.
Declarations page listed $50,000 UM coverage with no further limitations; premium noted as $31.95 for UM coverage.
The UM endorsement contains a limit-of-liability section and a set-off provision reducing amounts payable by sums paid by or on behalf of at-fault parties.
The trial court held the policy ambiguous and awarded UM benefits to Respondent; Nationwide appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the UM coverage defined by the policy ambiguous?	Nationwide argues the policy unambiguously limits UM benefits to the tortfeasor’s payment.	Respondent argues the declarations page language creates ambiguity that must be construed in her favor.	Yes, the policy is ambiguous.

Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (set-off language contradicts unqualified promises to pay; ambiguity arises)
Miller v. Ho Kun Yun, 400 S.W.3d 779 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (contradictory policy language renders policy ambiguous)
Rodriguez v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (ambiguity governs interpretation; ordinary understanding applied)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Noble Broadcast, 936 S.W.2d 810 (Mo. banc 1997) (ambiguity construed against insurer; language must be clear)
Behr v. Blue Cross Hosp. Service, Inc. of Missouri, 715 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. banc 1986) (contract promises then withdraws; ambiguity arises)
IT T Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard; ambiguities resolved as a matter of law)