Rebecca Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company
2014 Mo. LEXIS 200
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Doris Floyd, widow of Jerry Floyd, sues Shelter Mutual for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for Jerry's wrongful death.
- Policies provide UM of $100,000 per person with an 'owned-vehicle' partial exclusion reducing liability to $25,000 if damages occur while occupying a vehicle owned by an insured but not covered by the policy.
- At the time of the accident, Jerry drove a vehicle owned by him; two other Floyd-owned vehicles were insured under separate Shelter policies.
- Declarations show $100,000 UM per person; two other policies would contribute $25,000 each under the partial exclusion.
- Shelter paid $150,000: $100,000 under Jerry’s vehicle policy and $25,000 under each of the other two policies; Doris seeks $75,000 more under each of the two policies.
- The trial court held the partial exclusion unambiguous and applicable, granting summary judgment for Shelter; Doris appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doris is entitled to UM for wrongful death damages. | Floyd argues she is the insured entitled to damages for his death despite not being in a car. | Shelter contends the partial exclusion applies and limits other policies to $25,000 each. | No; Doris is not entitled to UM for wrongful death damages under the two policies. |
| Whether the owned-vehicle partial exclusion is ambiguous or unenforceable. | Doris asserts exclusion is ambiguous because it lowers coverage below the declarations. | Shelter argues exclusion is clear and applies when damages occur while occupying an insured’s vehicle not covered by the policy. | Exclusion is clear and unambiguous and limits liability to $25,000 per policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steele v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 400 S.W.3d 295 (Mo. banc 2013) (interpretation of policy terms and severability guidance)
- Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. banc 2009) (ambiguity and coverage versus exclusion interplay)
- Kuda v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 790 S.W.2d 464 (Mo. banc 1990) (UM coverage purpose and survivorship considerations)
- Cobb v. State Sec. Ins. Co., 576 S.W.2d 726 (Mo. banc 1979) (UM coverage for wrongful death damages)
- Livingston v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 444 (Mo. App. 1996) (survivors’ UM claims under decedent’s policy)
- Stewart v. Royal, 343 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. App. 2011) (survivor claims and statutory beneficiaries)
- Lavender v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 933 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. App. 1996) (UM coverage and survivor rights)
- Todd v. Missouri United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2007) (definitions, exclusions and enforceability in context)
- Baker v. DePew, 860 S.W.2d 318 (Mo. banc 1993) (severability and insured-specific application)