Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Morton
140 F. Supp. 3d 856
E.D. Mo.2015Background
- On Dec. 29, 2013 Marshia Morton was injured when her 1994 Ford Probe was struck by Edith Grainger; Grainger’s insurer (Progressive) paid its $100,000 per-person liability limit to settle Morton's claim.
- Mortons (Delton and Marshia) sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under Progressive policies issued to Delton (personal auto and a commercial policy); each policy’s declarations listed UIM limits of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident.
- Progressive refused payment and filed for declaratory judgment that (1) Grainger’s vehicle was not an “underinsured motor vehicle” under the policies and (2) stacking of UIM coverage was prohibited; Mortons counterclaimed for vexatious refusal and sought stacking.
- The policy’s UIM definition required the tortfeasor’s liability limits to be less than the insured’s UIM limit on the declarations page; limits of liability language also provided that the declarations limit may be reduced by sums paid by tortfeasors.
- Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; Mortons also sought oral argument, testimony, and late discovery; Mortons later withdrew claims under the commercial policy.
- The court found no genuine issue of material fact, held the policy unambiguous, found Grainger’s $100,000 liability limit was not less than the Mortons’ $100,000 UIM limit, and granted Progressive summary judgment (denying Mortons’ motions). Oral argument and discovery requests were denied as untimely or irrelevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Progressive) | Defendant's Argument (Mortons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIM coverage is triggered when tortfeasor’s liability limit equals insured’s UIM limit | UIM not triggered because policy defines “underinsured motor vehicle” as having liability limits less than the declarations UIM limit | Declarations, insuring agreement, limits language, and other-insurance clause read together create ambiguity and support recovery up to declarations amount | UIM not triggered; policy unambiguous and Grainger’s $100,000 is not less than Mortons’ $100,000 UIM limit (summary judgment for Progressive) |
| Whether policy language (declarations + definitions) is ambiguous | Policy language is clear; declarations are a summary subject to policy terms and reductions | Declarations page promises $100,000 UIM; absence of explicit limiting language creates ambiguity | Policy not ambiguous when read as whole; declarations warn limits are subject to terms and reductions; no ambiguity found |
| Whether stacking of UIM across vehicles/policies is permitted | Stacking prohibited by policy language; if UIM not triggered court need not decide | Stacking should be allowed; Mortons sought stacking across three vehicles | Court did not reach stacking because UIM coverage was not triggered; Progressive prevails on primary issue |
| Whether late discovery/oral testimony should be allowed to show insurers’ intent or insureds’ expectations | Irrelevant if contract unambiguous; discovery untimely | Oral argument and insured testimony needed to show reasonable expectations and ambiguity; seek claims file | Denied: issues fully briefed, parol/extrinsic evidence irrelevant to unambiguous contract, discovery untimely and irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. 1991) (Missouri Supreme Court holds unambiguous UIM definition controls; equal liability limits do not trigger UIM)
- Owners Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 712 F.3d 392 (8th Cir. 2013) (applies Rodriguez and rejects insured’s ambiguity arguments where tortfeasor’s limits equal insured’s UIM limits)
- Weber v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 286 (8th Cir. 1989) (contrasting federal decision rejected by Rodriguez for creating ambiguity where policy language was clear)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. 2007) (ambiguity can arise when other-insurance/excess clauses conflict with UIM definitions)
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (policy construed as whole; anti-stacking analysis in context of nonowned vehicle)
- Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. 2009) (resolving inconsistency between UM exclusions and broader provisions by construing ambiguities for insured)
- Jaudes v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 11 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (refuses to follow Fanning; enforces Rodriguez where policies are materially similar)