Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Straw
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 70
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Straw was injured in a December 14, 2007 collision caused by Heiskell, who carried liability insurance with Farmers ($100,000 per person).
- Straw had a Shelter policy that included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
- Farmers paid Straw $100,000 for damages and bodily injuries; Shelter sought declaratory judgment to determine UIM coverage
- Litigation proceeded via cross-summary-judgment motions; trial court entered Straw’s summary judgment for $100,000 and Shelter appealed.
- Shelter argues a set-off provision reduces its UIM liability by the tortfeasor’s payment; Straw argues Shelter must pay the full UIM limit of $100,000 absent proper set-off.
- Court reverses trial court, holding Shelter’s set-off provision unambiguously reduces liability and Shelter owes no UIM payment beyond the portion remaining after set-off.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Shelter’s set-off provision ambiguous? | Straw argues ambiguity exist because provision both promises coverage and removes it. | Shelter argues provision unambiguously reduces liability by payments by others. | No ambiguity; provision unambiguously reduces liability. |
| Does the policy language require paying the full UIM limit regardless of tortfeasor payments? | Straw contends Shelter must pay up to $100,000. | Shelter contends liability is limited to the difference after set-off. | Set-off applies; Shelter pays nothing beyond remaining uncompensated damages. |
| Does Lynch control the interpretation of Shelter’s UIM endorsement here? | Straw relies on Lynch to argue a different, more favorable interpretation. | Shelter relies on Lynch to show set-off language is enforceable. | Lynch controls; set-off language enforceable; summary judgment for Shelter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 325 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. App. 2010) (set-off provisions reducing by payments are permissible when language is clear)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (ambiguous policy language treated in favor of insured; interpret terms reasonably)
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (endorsement limits and set-off provisions; interpret in context of policy provisions)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (establishes general rule for ambiguity and interpretation of insurance contracts)