368 S.W.3d 174
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Taylor, then 15, injured while walking when struck by Scott; damages cap ≥ $135,000; Scott’s liability policy paid $25,000.
- Taylor was insured by two State Farm policies, each with $50,000 UIM; State Farm paid $50,000 under one policy and refused the second.
- Taylor sued State Farm Oct 12, 2010 to recover an additional $50,000 under the second policy; cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted Taylor summary judgment for $50,000; State Farm appealed.
- Issue is whether the policy language allows stacking of UIM benefits across multiple State Farm policies; the court reviews de novo and interprets ambiguities in favor of the insured, but enforces unambiguous provisions as written.
- Facts are stipulated; the central question is whether you can stack UIM under two policies where one policy’s limits are $50,000 and total damages exceed that amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 1(a) unambiguously bars stacking UIM across policies. | Taylor argues anti-stacking language is ambiguous and stacking should be allowed. | State Farm argues 1(a) unambiguously limits all such coverages to the highest single limit. | Unambiguous anti-stacking; no stacking allowed. |
| Whether Section 1(a) read with 1(b) and related language creates an ambiguity. | Taylor asserts conflict with other language creates ambiguity. | State Farm contends provisions read together are clear anti-stacking. | No ambiguity; read together, 1(a) and 1(b) preclude stacking. |
| Whether Clark v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. supports ambiguity or stacking allowance. | Taylor relies on Clark to show ambiguity in other-insurance language. | State Farm distinguishes Clark; here 1(a) directly controls stacking. | Clark not controlling; policy language unambiguous as anti-stacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 301 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. banc 2009) (interpretation of unambiguous policies; lay understanding)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (de novo interpretation of policy terms)
- Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 992 S.W.2d 308 (Mo.App. E.D.1999) (anti-stacking prohibition when multiple UIM coverages exist)
- Seck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguities resolved in insured’s favor)
- Rodriguez v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (contractual determination of stacking based on policy language)
- Chamness v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 226 S.W.3d 199 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (anti-stacking provisions considered in context of policy language)
- Long v. Shelter Ins. Companies, 351 S.W.3d 692 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (anti-stacking language similar to present case)
- Clark v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 92 S.W.3d 198 (Mo.App. E.D.2002) (discussed for ambiguity in other-insurance language)