Steele v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.
2013 Mo. LEXIS 28
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Charzetta Steele sues Shelter for UM benefits on her child who was a passenger in Bright Start Academy’s van after an uninsured driver struck the van.
- Shelter moved for summary judgment, arguing the child was not an insured or user under the policy’s UM provisions.
- Policy defines insured to include the policyholder, relatives, additional insureds, and those using the vehicle with permission, but not all passengers.
- MVFRL/§ 379.203 require UM coverage for insureds under the liability policy, not every vehicle passenger.
- Court analyzes whether public policy requires extending UM coverage to passive passengers beyond the policy definition.
- Trial court granted Shelter summary judgment; appellate court affirms, holding the child is not an insured under the policy or by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child is an insured under the UM provisions | Steele contends statutory UM requires coverage for all passengers. | Shelter argues policy defines use/insured narrowly; child not an insured. | No; child not insured under policy terms. |
| Whether MVFRL/§ 379.203 requires UM coverage for passive passengers | Steele argues statute broadens coverage to all passengers. | Shelter argues statute ties UM to liability-insured persons, not all passengers. | No; statute requires coverage only for those insured under liability policy. |
| Whether Missouri case law requires extending coverage by public policy | Steele cites public policy to broaden coverage to all passengers. | Shelter asserts policy controls absent statutory mandate to broaden UM. | No; public policy does not compel broadening beyond policy and statute. |
| Whether the policy’s 'use' definition excludes passive passengers | Steele argues public policy should read 'use' broadly to include passengers. | Shelter's policy defines use as controlling or attempting to control; child does not qualify. | Yes; child not a user under policy definition. |
| Whether § 303.190 MVFRL minimums affect our reading of UM coverage | Steele asserts MVFRL minimums mandate UM for passengers. | Shelter argues MVFRL requires coverage only for those within liability definitions. | No; MVFRL requires coverage matching policy definitions and statutory liability use. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (de novo review standard for summary judgment; standard of review)
- Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Ltd., 827 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1992) (interpretation of unambiguous policy terms; public policy limits)
- Waltz v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 626 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1975) (use requires supervisory or active control; passenger not insured if no control)
- Pope v. Stotts, 712 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.App.1986) (passenger insured if there is supervisory control or guidance of vehicle)
- Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Prot. Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. banc 2008) (realistic right of control test for passenger liability)
- Henley v. Bickel, 285 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. banc 2009) (realistic right of control requirement limits passenger liability)
- Francis-Newell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 841 S.W.2d 812 (Mo.App.1992) (interpretation of ambiguity in policy terms favoring coverage)
- Byers v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., 271 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App.2008) (negligence basis vs. uninsured motorist coverage)
- Lee v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 646 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2002) (UM coverage when liability coverage exists; broader passenger inclusion discussed)