Stewart v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 977
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Stewart was seriously injured in a February 2007 one-vehicle crash while a passenger in a car driven by Tanner.
- Tanner was insured for $100,000; Stewart held UIM coverage with Liberty Mutual at $100,000 for four vehicles.
- Stewart obtained a $500,000 judgment against Tanner; Liberty Mutual paid $100,000 and denied the remaining three vehicle UIM limits due to an anti-stacking provision.
- In 2010, Stewart amended his petition, asserting Count I for $300,000 more under stacked UIM coverage and Counts II–III for vexatious/refusal claims.
- The circuit court granted partial summary judgment on Count I in March 2010; Counts II–III were dismissed without prejudice in April 2010.
- Stewart appealed the summary judgment ruling on Count I seeking stacking of UIM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the anti-stacking language ambiguous? | Stewart argues ambiguity in anti-stacking clauses. | Liberty Mutual asserts the clause is unambiguous and enforceable as written. | The policy language is not ambiguous; stacking is prohibited. |
| Did the partial summary judgment on Count I become a final judgment for purposes of appeal after dismissal of Counts II–III? | Stewart contends the partial judgment remained non-final while Counts II–III existed. | Liberty Mutual contends dismissal of Counts II–III without prejudice closed the case and made Count I final. | Yes; after dismissal of Counts II–III, the Count I judgment became final and appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo. v. Barker, 150 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. App. 2004) (anti-stacking provisions reaffirmed by surrounding language)
- Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (excess/other insurance clause creates ambiguity with limit of liability)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguity when excess/other insurance clause conflicts with other coverage terms)
- Magee v. Blue Ridge Prof'l Bldg. Co., Inc., 821 S.W.2d 842 (Mo. banc 1991) (finality standards for partial judgments and dismissals)
- Mattes v. Black & Veatch, 828 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. App. 1992) (partial judgments with subsequent dismissals can become final for appeal)
- Partney v. Reed, 839 S.W.2d 694 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (final judgment principles with staged claims)
- Chamness v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 226 S.W.3d 199 (Mo. App. 2007) (ambiguity when excess/other insurance creates coverage ambiguity)