Stewart v. Royal
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 950
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brendan Johnson died in an accident caused by an intoxicated uninsured driver; Stewart, his mother, seeks uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under her policy for Johnson’s death.
- Johnson was uninsured; his vehicle was not covered by an insurance policy at the time; Stewart’s Ford Explorer carried UM coverage with $100,000/$300,000 limits.
- American Family Mutual Insurance Co. added a named driver exclusion (NDE) after Johnson’s coverage termination; the NDE excludes coverage for any vehicle in Johnson’s care, custody, or control.
- Stewart, as a statutory representative under Missouri’s wrongful death act, claims UM benefits under her policy for the death of her son; American Family moved for summary judgment relying on the NDE.
- Policy defines insured person to include You/relative and others occupying the insured car; Johnson was not an insured under the Stewart policy; ambiguity exists in the NDE regarding UM coverage.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for American Family based on the NDE; Stewart appeals the denial of UM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the NDE unambiguously bar UM coverage for Stewart’s UM claim? | NDE is ambiguous or inapplicable to UM; Johnson not an insured for UM; policy language aims to exclude liability, not UM coverage. | NDE clearly excludes coverage when Johnson drives; Johnson was not an insured; UM coverage should be barred. | Ambiguity; NDE does not alone bar UM claim; reliance on NDE insufficient to deny UM. |
| Was Johnson an insured person under the Stewart policy for UM purposes? | If Stewart is insured and Johnson is a household member without own vehicle, Johnson could trigger UM coverage. | Johnson was not an insured person under the policy; the NDE excludes him. | Johnson not an insured person; UM coverage not triggered by him. |
| Did Stewart sustain a ‘bodily injury’ under the policy to recover UM for the death of her son? | Stewart seeks UM for wrongful death as the insured, arguing ‘bodily injury’ includes death of a person eligible under wrongful death act. | Bodily injury must be sustained by an insured person; Stewart did not sustain bodily injury herself. | Bodily injury must be sustained by an insured person; Stewart did not sustain bodily injury. |
| Should the court construe the policy language contra proferentem due to ambiguity in the NDE? | Ambiguity should be construed against insurer; UM coverage should be read in Stewart’s favor. | Policy language should be interpreted to reflect exclusion of Johnson’s driving from coverage. | Ambiguity resolved against insurer; NDE does not alone bar UM. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 783 S.W.2d 921 (Mo.App.1989) (conceptual framework for UM coverage and policy interpretation)
- White v. Illinois Founders Ins. Co., 52 S.W.3d 597 (Mo.App.2001) (unambiguous named driver exclusion terminates coverage)
- Livingston v. Omaha Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 927 S.W.2d 444 (Mo.App.1996) (bodily injury under UM must be sustained by an insured person)
- Lavender v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 933 S.W.2d 888 (Mo.App.1996) (cannot extend UM coverage to non-insured relatives under wrongful death gap)
- Tinch v. State Farm Insurance Co., 16 S.W.3d 747 (Mo.App.2000) (NDE-like provision may bar UM/med pay claims when driving by excluded driver)