Warden v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 80

Plaintiff Cody Warden was insured under four Shelter policies, each providing $100,000 UIM per person / $800,000 per accident.
Warden, a pedestrian, was struck by Jesse Anglen; Anglen’s insurer (Progressive) paid Warden $25,000.
Warden demanded $400,000 in UIM benefits (stacking all four Shelter policies); Shelter paid $75,000 (one $100,000 limit less the $25,000 set-off).
Trial court granted summary judgment for Shelter: (1) Progressive’s $25,000 reduced Shelter’s $100,000 UIM limit (set-off); (2) Shelter’s policies could not be stacked.
Parties stipulated to material facts; appellate review applied de novo legal standards for contract interpretation and summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy's set-off language is ambiguous and prohibits reducing the stated UIM limit by payments from the tortfeasor’s liability insurer	Warden: language ambiguous; "uncompensated damages" should mean Shelter pays remaining damages, not reduce the UIM limit	Shelter: policy (introductory note, insuring agreement, and Limits of Liability §3) unambiguously informs insured that declared limits are reduced by amounts paid by liable persons/insurers	Court: set-off language is unambiguous; Progressive’s $25,000 reduces Shelter’s $100,000 limit; point denied
Whether Shelter’s policies may be stacked (collect aggregate limits across multiple Shelter policies)	Warden: general "other insurance" provision suggests proportional stacking; endorsement conflict creates ambiguity permitting stacking	Shelter: endorsement explicitly disallows adding/combining/stacking limits; endorsement controls when it conflicts with base policy	Court: anti-stacking clause in endorsement is clear and controls; stacking prohibited; point denied

Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (insurance contract interpretation; ambiguities resolved for insured)
Long v. Shelter Ins. Companies, 351 S.W.3d 692 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (summary judgment standard and UIM interpretation)
Wasson v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 358 S.W.3d 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (set-off language ambiguity where limits not clearly tied to payments)
Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) (contract governs existence and application of UIM/set-off)
Rodriguez v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1991) (policy language reducing limits by sums paid by liable parties is unambiguous)
Manner v. Schiermeier, 393 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. banc 2013) (stacking analysis: determine whether policies permit stacking before comparing to tortfeasor coverage)
Gavan v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. banc 2008) (clear policy language must be enforced as written)
Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (use plain meaning when policy terms undefined)
Abco Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 550 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. banc 1977) (endorsement prevails over conflicting base policy provisions)