*1 HARRISON, Appellant, Betty
v. MUTUAL INSURANCE
MFA
CO., Respondent. PRIDGEN, Appellant,
Kathy MUTUAL INSURANCE
MFA
CO., Respondent.
No. 61940. Missouri, Court of
Supreme
En Banc.
Sept. 1980. 15, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Oct. *2 though original here appeal. case V,
Mo.Const. art. 10. Plaintiffs’ evidence established the fol- 30, 1972, lowing facts: On October Vernon Plymouth Bush lost control of his automo- *3 driving bile speed while at a excess of the posted per speed 50 miles hour limit on Highway County, M-291 in Jackson Missou- ri. The automobile skidded and turned passen- over. Bush was killed and his two wife, gers, (now plaintiffs Betty herein-his Harrison) stepdaughter, Betty and his Ka- thy Pridgen-were injured. It is undisputed Bush, his stepdaughter wife and all (Bush’s) in the resided same household. accident, At the of the time there in effect an liability was automobile insur ance issued defendant MFA Insur Company to ance Vernon A. Bush as the Plymouth named insured the 1968 auto driving. mobile which he was Defendant coverage plaintiffs’ denied original personal injuries claims for their under the liability section of the on the basis policy’s clause, “household exclusion” coverage injury which excludes for “bodily to the insured or any family member residing insured in the same house hold as insured.” Such an exclusion in the concept inherent insur ance, protection contemplates which of the liability running insured Miller, Foust, Spencer W. G. Kansas Max Thus, even though insured to another. City, appellants. negligent, Bush was not at did Maloney, City, J. Kansas for re- Michael time extend for bodi spondent. ly injury to members of the who household injured riding were while with the named
SEILER, Judge. insured. There no direct claim to the contrary appeal, although asserted in this appeal from a is an directed verdict This plaintiffs to in the prevail position were brought suit a consolidated under infra, take they effectively it would neu insurance clause for excluding intra-family tralize the clause li single damages sustained in vehicle auto- ability. appeals, The court of accident. mobile district, ordered case transfer- position refer, western In the plain- to which opinion claiming court after because of to this tiffs are under red the unin- importance interest and motorist section of the general policy by agreed the need for a defendant presented pay “all sums questions insured legal representa- law. We will treat which the or his reexamination Ward, up majority Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. rule which Co. follows 1. Missouri (Mo. 1960). validity the “household exclusion” holds policies. State in automobile regular cle furnished for the use of the to recover legally entitled shall be tives insured, spouse, operator of an named or a relative.” the owner or damages from added). re- (emphasis . . . . With An “insured automo- highway vehicle provided coverage, bile” is defined to mean automobile spect to de- policy. By policy means “the in the automobile” described defini- that “insured e., Plym- tion, then, Plymouth Bush automobile” automo- scribed [/. bile, policy] poli- in the described in the described as the automobile outh vehicle” shall highway highway cy, term “uninsured was not an “uninsured vehi- cle”; automobile.” Accord- include “an instead it was an “insured automo- pay plaintiffs refused ingly, defendant Accordingly, appellants bile.” cannot show on the motorist section the uninsured injured by they were and exclu- policy’s definitions ineligible basis vehicle” and are to re- highway barred sions damages cover motor- *4 policy. of the ist insurance” section alleging suit defend- each filed Plaintiffs provisions of the liability under ant’s In Miles v. Farm Mut. Auto. By stipulation motorist section. 1975), (Mo.App. Ins. were plaintiffs of the suits parties, of the appeals ques of addressed a similar court waived, trial, jury a was consolidated concerning tion a one vehicle accident. to the court were submitted the causes plaintiff There sued his automobile insurer of liability. At the close of to the issue as provi the uninsured motor vehicle under evidence, a mo- defendant filed plaintiffs’ policy. pleaded of his Plaintiff he was sions which the trial verdict for directed tion injured passen in a one car accident while a appeal, plaintiffs On sustained. court being in his own automobile then driven ger allege that “appellants”) (hereinafter brother, “negli his who was by “uninsured” the directed granting court erred trial gently operating an uninsured automobile.” terms and verdict, that ground on the here, policy provided There as defendant by issued policy of the conditions “uninsured motor vehicle” shall not term were ineffective “respondent”) (hereinafter The court include the “insured vehicle.” unclear, as well as vague, ambiguous as language policy found that refuted public policy. violative of nothing and that plaintiff’s contention policy contravened the insurance Missouri I policy by as set the uninsured motor public “the issue assert Appellants agree ist statute. We result ‘uninsured is an is: What must be decided the determination that reached in Miles and Appellants concede highway vehicle’?” policy of the term highway “uninsured if the definition motor vehicle” shall not include “uninsured respondent’s forth in vehicle” as set motor vehicle” does not contra an “insured valid, judgment of applicable and is 379.203, public policy as set section vene must be affirmed. court trial requires liability policies provisions of of the Examination coverage to insureds who are le to afford section insurance” motorist damages gally entitled to recover terms of shows Bush’s operators of uninsured motor ve owners persons in coverage only to policy extend hicles. vehicle.” highway jured by an “uninsured present case nor Miles Neither damages under this Therefore, recover accident, but we do a two vehicle Vernon involved show that must requiring in a two vehicle read Miles as highway not driving an was Bush inquiry no more than an whether accident meaning of that term vehicle” within applied to the second vehicle any insurance highway An “uninsured policy. in the used determinative any circumstances as under to exclude in the is defined was “insured” or whether the vehicle vehi- highway aor automobile insured “an vehicle; (b) required a highway hit-and-run purposes “uninsured” coverage. Whether a ve- highway but the term “uninsured is or uninsured vehicle motor hicle” shall include: coverage depends whether the on liability (1) highway an insured automobile or a coverage is its liability regular furnished for the use of vehicle specific light of the and conditions terms insured, spouse, or rela- the named operation. of the vehicle’s circumstances tive. applicable if all is (2) highway operat- a owned or Questions of the are met. conditions ed a self-insurer within the mean- insurance can be applicability pre- ing the basis events which any motor vehicle financial re- answered example, a law, cede accident. For sponsibility law or carrier applicable, and hence vehi- policy is not law, any similar uninsured, automobile is cle where the (3) a highway by any owned user, non-permissive or a by a thief driven federal, state, territorial, provincial, question though even automobile government, municipal political sub- liability pol- the described automobile of division, department, agency icy. them, (4) highway vehicle operated or used II by any person as an employee the term “unin- Appellants maintain that *5 United States Government vehicle,” in the unin- highway as used sured of the poli- insurance section sured motorist (c) highway an insured vehicle where the (Section V) unclear, vague ambig- and cy is insurer thereof is unable to ambiguity such must be re- uous and that with payment respect make to the pertinent of solved in favor legal liability of its insured within the this state: definitions in applicable any limits of re- financial “ means: ‘insured’ sponsibility insolvency law because of insured,
(a)the spouse, and named “ relative; . highway ‘hit-and-run vehicle’ means a “ ‘insured [******] automobile’ means” ry highway to an insured vehicle which arising causes out of bodily physical inju- highway contact of such vehicle automobile; (a) described the insured or with an which the automobile (b) being while non-owned automobile a occupying at of the is the time insured; by the . operated named accident, (a) provided: there cannot be “ (a) ‘uninsured ty bond highway spect at legally which bond which a ownership, [******] highway vehicle the time time or insurance there there is responsible or insurance highway vehicle’ of the any person or vehicle, is a maintenance of no the accident accident bodily injury liability bodily or with policy the use injury but applicable at organization means: or use of with re- liabili- com- guity defining Accordingly, hicle’ after the reference to “hit-and-run highway the term “hit-and-run four this is created by It erator ascertained highway is placement appellants’ position exclusionary be the term ‘uninsured vehicle”. resolved in favor or owner vehicle’; appellants urge leads one to placement identity definitions relate “ Appellants of ....” that an highway of believe of the a either ‘hit-and-run contend highway ambiguity the ambi- provision vehicle.” only op- ve- the trial court’s directed be held in verdict writing the same denies cover- pany thereunder, Appellants support- error. cite no decision age section, reading disput- a sured motorist insurance view even casual ing their ed language meaning vehicles excluded from is consistent types four (the in- highway unequivocally appel- excludes term automobile; op- vehicle a owned lants in this case. language sured’s Where in an a self-insurer in whose certified insurance contract is unequivocal, erated it is to be reg- twenty-five vehicles are given plain at least meaning name its notwithstanding istered; governmental a a owned appears fact in a restrictive provisions a within Farm entity; Mut. policy. of a Act, g. mail Ward, e. Federal Tort Claims Auto. Ins. Co. v. truck) of the would that none four (Mo. 1960). discloses courts are not authoriz- “[T]he thought a hit- commonly is of as what pervert language ed to or exercise inventive example, For and-run automobile. powers for the creating an ambi- is one of the classes automobile Ibid. guity when none exists.’ We refuse term within vehicles to create an under ambiguity vehicle”, and it would be fallacious highway language where none so as to exists exclu- the absence argue imaginary ambiguity strue the in such a an insured automobile —i. sionary definition way might to reach a result which some policy- e., described the automobile consider desirable but not other- making the person it who is permissible wise vehicle, claim, could a hit-and-run law. nothing the fact “hit-and-run say expressly defined else- highway vehicle” Ill part policy, of the in the same Appellants also contend that if the terms exclusionary the four why reason further exclude them from uninsured not restricted as definitions coverage, such terms contend. be held as violative should ineffective public Appellants policy. in context with the cite section When viewed 379.- 1978,2 203.1, legislature’s the unin- and definitions in ex- provisions other *6 379.203, provides: legal liability of its within the insured limits 2. Section specified insolvency. herein because of liability insurance cov- “1. No automobile insolvency protection An insurer’s “3. ownership, arising ering liability of out applicable only shall be to accidents occur- maintenance, any use of motor vehicle or ring during policy period in which its in- delivery in be or issued for shall delivered coverage in sured’s uninsured motorist is ef- any respect to motor vehicle state with this liability fect where the insurer of the tort- garaged registered principally in this state or years within feasor becomes insolvent two sup- coverage provided or is therein unless Nothing after such an accident. herein con- thereto, plemental limits in not less than the any prevent tained shall be construed to bodily injury in or death set forth section for 303.030, RSMo, affording insolvency protection surer from protection persons of for under more terms conditions favorable legally to entitled who insured thereunder provided to its than is hereunder. insureds operators damages owners or from recover any person payment of to “4. In the event of bodi- vehicles because of uninsured motor section, coverage required this disease, including ly injury, sickness subject to the terms and conditions of death, resulting af- therefrom. Provisions coverage, making pay- such such insurer fording protection un- such insurance shall, thereof, ment to the extent be entitled prior this to issued in state insured motorists proceeds any judg- to the of settlement or 1967, shall, when afforded October resulting any ment from the exercise of deemed, insurer, subject any authorized rights recovery person against any of of such section, satisfy prescribed in this the limits person organization legally responsible section, requirements of this bodily injury payment for which such is coverage, this For of “2. made, including proceeds recoverable shall, subject vehicle” motor term “uninsured insurer; pro- from the assets of the insolvent vided, however, coverage, of conditions to the terms and respect payments vehi- an insured motor deemed include coverage of described made reason in liability is un- insurer thereof where the cle above, 2 and 3 the insurer subsections mak- payment with to the to make able ing payment be entitled to shall not Missouri, We note requiring insur- also in one public of pression may lawfully drive an provide their automobile without companies to within ance having first secured automobile in policies mo- automobile insurance mandatory surance because insurance cov per- protection coverage “for torist is erage public policy not the of this state. legally who are insured thereunder sons is “no Nor Missouri a fault” insurance state. damages from owners or to recover entitled uninsured motor vehicles operators 379.203.1 provides Section that unin- added). (emphasis . .” sured motorist insurance shall be included liability policies within automobile “for the earlier, accident As set out protection persons insured thereunder the insured vehicle. only Ap- case involves are legally damages who entitled to recover the cited statute man- contend that pellants operators owners uninsured mo- driver whose that uninsured dates of bodily injury, tor vehicles because sick- injuries himself members his disease, death, including ness or resulting express is excluded household (emphasis added). therefrom” In the subse- section of the is terms 379.203, quent provisions of the leg- section under the uninsured covered nonetheless expression islature used the short-hand his section of own because motorist” than the wordy rather an liability exclusion makes him “unin- phrase operators “owners or of uninsured Appellants contend, motorist.” motor vehicles.” Nowhere there a is defini- therefore, requires the statute insur- tion of an “uninsured in the motorist” stat- extend companies to their ance ute other than the definition enunciated at the insured vehicle and to such cases on statute, the onset of or opera- “owners an or member insured consider is, tors of uninsured motor vehicles.” There driving the vehicle to be “un- household qualifying 379.203.2 a definition poli- under the insurance insured motorist” which defines the term “uninsured motor damages. recovering purposes for the cy include an “to insured motor vehi- the terms of the stat- cle insurer is Before examine thereof payment unable make legislature, whether ute to determine legal liability of insured . . . contend, be- require un- intended to [the] insolvency.” cause of qualification This protection ap- motorist insurance insured legislative purpose consistent with the policy’s liability to an insured whose ply protecting from an “owner or coverage, we deny briefly him exclusions operator vehicle” in [an] statutory rules of note illustrates the focus on the statutory primary struction. “The rule of uninsured vehicle and not on whether the ascertain intent of the construction is to *7 or is an operator owner “uninsured motor- used, give legislature language from ist” the circumstances of an accident. and possible, intent if that effect The answer is in the the legisla- words of in the statute in their consider words used ture at the onset of the statute: an owner ordinary meaning.” City Wil- plain and operator or of an uninsured motor vehicle is Librarian, 596 Springs low v. Missouri implicitly necessarily and the “uninsured 441, 1980). (Mo. banc “Provi- 445 S.W.2d whom statutory motorist” from frame- law, written or plainly in sions not requires protection. work written, necessarily from what implied by a court not be added It is not that should correct terms accomplish an end guise of construction vehicle” and “uninsured beneficial.” Wilson v. in interchangeable deems motorist” are the stat court case, If McNeal, 802, (Mo.App. ute. were the 809 this statute 575 S.W.2d protect against operators would “owners or 1978). recovery against right assets insolvent tortfeasor in insurer of said tort- proceeds from the feasor." recovered excess 144 motorists”, provide ness in this patently absurd state and certain mini-
of uninsured presume legislature monetary “We mum limits construction. law, . enact absurd not intend to an did general Under rule that ... construing in and [a]ct “[wjhere one statute deals subject with a in objects of and promote
seek general terms and another deals with the strained to avoid the statute and subject in way, same a more minute the two Safety rel. Am meaning,’ State ex absurd possible, be if should harmonized ex “State 242, Kinder, bulance, Inc. v. rel. Fort Zumwalt School District v. Dick 1977). Alternatively, argu if the (Mo. banc herber, (Mo. 1979), 532-37 S.W.2d banc terms “uninsured motor ment is that we read the uninsured motorist statute in are in “uninsured motorist” vehicles” and harmony Safety with the Motor must Vehicle but the statute terchangeable Responsibility Law as to against “uninsured motor so establish a con protect read operators or sistent framework and context for the term ist” and not “owners motorists,” such a construction re then “uninsured motor vehicle” by as used we strike from the quires legislature. We conclude that the term as It is a rule operators.” or words “owners legislature used refers to a vehicle construction, however, “sig statutory operator whose or owner not have in did should, possible, if effect nificance and effect at the time of the accident auto word, phrase, every every sen attributed to with liability policy mobile thereof, phras words of part tence and motor vehicle involved in the accident. may only out extreme be stricken es bar, Bush, the case at Vernon as owner and Atterbury, ex rel. Smith cases.” State operator, had in effect automobile liabili 399, (1954). Mo. ty the motor vehicle the statute is plausible reading of only involved in the accident which motor vehicle” the terms injuries. Appellants sustained their have not inter motorist” are and “uninsured not claimed did question statute means changeable, and that comply requirements not with the statutory protection in its says what Safety Responsibility of the Motor Vehicle operators or of uninsured against “owners exempt Law. Since Vernon Bush was motor vehicles.” Safety the sanctions of the Motor Vehicle directs, 379.203.1, section Responsibility The statute at Law in effect at having be read motorist statute the uninsured the time of liability policy the accident Safety Motor Re- together accident, Vehicle the vehicle involved in Law, et seq., 303.010 sponsibility may not be deemed an “uninsured required as the least insofar at motor vehicle” in the context used injury death are con- bodily limits for legislature. Respon- Safety Vehicle cerned. The Motor holding is Our consistent deci posting of for the sibility provides Law sions in this and other that have states operator’s suspension of an security or the legislative studied the framework created report of a motor upon the license by both the uninsured motorist statute bodily injury has resulted accident that safety laws. responsibility the motor vehicle apply provisions do death. These uniformly concluded that These courts have if such own- “(1) operator To owner *8 exact uninsured motorist extends the of such accident had effect at time er in as been ly to the same extent would have respect liability with policy an automobile available, less, and no if the tort- no more in such acci- vehicle involved the motor to re complied feasor had with the minimum 303.030.4(1), dent-, RSMo 1978 . .” . safety re of the motor vehicle pro- quirements further added). This section
(emphasis Lammers Farm sponsibility law. v. State effective a to be such vides that for Co., 36, 48 361 Ala.App. Mut. Auto. Ins. by an it be issued must under this section 757, (1972); Bacchus v. Farmers do busi- So.2d 763 to company authorized
145 MFA were unable 280, of section 379.203.2 if to Ariz. 475 Exchange, 106 Group Ins. payment legal make with 264, Tuggle v. Government (1970); 267 P.2d Bush, insured, 674, by of its reason of Co., (Fla. 207 675 So.2d Employees Ins. Co., then the term “uninsured insolvency, Ins. 467 MFA 1968); West American Allen v. (or equivalent) vehicle” its the 1971); Webb v. motor 123, (Ky. State 127 S.W.2d 148, to include Co., MFA shall be deemed the 479 S.W.2d Auto Ins. Farm Mut. Co., 1972); Plymouth Mut. 1968 automobile described the Allied Ins. (Mo.App. 152 133, This 562, (1968); policy. 138 would ascribe nonsensical N.W.2d Neb. legislature, one which Ins. intention the Farm Mut. Holt 1972); accomplish nothing. If MFA is (Tenn. Kay v. would insol- 734, 736-37 vent, 1372, good say it does no that under P.2d such Kay, 30 Utah 2d circumstance, case, Plymouth the automobile will the court (1973). the Webb In motor be considered an “uninsured vehicle”. held, public policy the “It appeals insolvent, (passengers If MFA is by the uninsured mo Missouri established vehicle) collect in the MFA will still noth- statute, then, each insured under that torist whether is called an in- ing, Plymouth the the available full statu coverage have vehicle. the same extent sured or uninsured exactly tory minimum had the tort- been available as would have sense, however, The statute makes when require the minimum complied with feasor where, to a applied example, situation responsibility Law financial ments the by the MFA insured is hit another insured Safety Responsibility Motor Vehicle [the the insurer vehicle and turns out that (emphasis at 152 add Law].” second vehicle becomes insolvent. Un- bar, Bush, the ed). at Vernon In the case conditions, by these virtue of the stat- der tortfeasor, have an automobile in fact did ute, vehicle” the term “uninsured motor re complied liability policy which MFA be deemed to shall include Re Safety Vehicle quirements of Motor (an second insured vehicle Consequently, the unin sponsibility Law. insurer thereof has become in- application. has no sured motorist then, solvent). example, this MFA 379.203.2, make insured would be able to claim section Appellants cite (which MFA is not the legislature company evidence insolvent), which has on the vehicle could be become basis templated that an insured the second vehicle virtue motor vehicle” an “uninsured considered statute, must an protection re- be considered motorist motor under the MFA uninsured in automobile insur- included quired single This is the cir- the statute. Section 379.- policies by ance has legislature cumstance where the re- this cov- provides “For 203.2 that an insured vehicle must be con- quired motor vehicle’ ‘uninsured erage, term vehicle”. By sidered an “uninsured motor shall, and conditions of subject to the terms legislature did not section 379.203.2 the to include coverage, be deemed comprehensive definition of “unin- tend vehicle where insured motor vehicle”, make motor and it is not inconsist- payment is unable insurer thereof its ent with statute for the define liability of legal as not an “uninsured motor vehicle” includ- herein because specified within limits ing the insured in specifically insolvency.” policy. contend Appellants It anticipated is further evident rather legislature
shows intending generally legislature rejected in advance the than specifically thereby 379.203.2that an insurer could never the vehicle described since contention that insured vehicle provide its own could policy, it is insured under motor ve not be considered an “uninsured appel What vehicle”. specific hicle”, legislature had in mind a effect, virtue is that saying, lants *9 situation-/, purpose the e., the “For of this coverage, where the insurer on the shall, ‘uninsured vehicle’ passen- term motor sub- against which the driver or vehicle terms ject to the and conditions of such making vehicle were claim gers of another coverage, be deemed to include insolvent, the vehicle is then first becomes vehicle”, (emphasis motor sup- sured etc. motor vehicle considered an uninsured to be plied). on coverage motor far as the uninsured so the second vehicle is concerned. Under the courts provi- Other have found the above ex- that “the statutory rule of construction significant considering so when whether or implies the ex- thing one press mention of legislature by enacting the unin- Morris, another”, Brown clusion motorist intended to sured outlaw (Mo. banc Mo. the household exclusion. hold, do, that 1956), it is as fair West In Allen v. American Ins. by an inclusion of a vehicle insured statute’s 1971), (Ky. appeal S.W.2d 123 a consolidated required to be being insolvent insurer as claims, involving question three before motor meaning of “uninsured within the here, court, as was whether the unin and, special that case is limited to imposed motorist sured on further, legislative dec- that it constitutes company in situations where used definition as laration “household exclusion” other us, “unin- where an MFA in case before relieve company wise would from liabil is defined not highway vehicle” sured ity. In each case there was a one-car acci automobile, permissi- the insured include dent, with claims one being made mem ble. ber of the household In other. each case the contained a “household proposed view The effect of the provided exclusion” clause and also unin invalidate the household would be to dissent cases, In coverage. sured all three of “uninsured and the definition exclusion appeal the court on denied on vehicle”, thereby greatly broaden- highway part particular, insurer. with which, coverage of the ing the portion to the of the Kentucky stat course, higher ultimately premiums means quoted ute which is the same as 379.203.2 regard In this it bears the consumer. above, the court said as follows: only puts statute itself repeating our weighing question, appro- “In it is company an insurance limitation on one to notice words priate opening of the what can and cannot statute, section of the same which are: vehicle. motor considered an uninsured “ coverage, ‘For where one limitation is the instance That (UM) the term ‘uninsured motor vehi- on the other automobile insurer shall, subject cle’ to the terms (§ 379.203.2). Other insolvent becomes coverage, of such ditions deemed to statutes have in some states similar motor include vehicle expanded per- what will not be instances * * * added.) .’ (Emphasis to be an uninsured mitted considered using language, “In the italicized where on cases include recognized Legislature there would statutory other vehicle is below of such be ‘terms conditions cover- where the insurer as amount or minimum application age’ to the statute’s coverage. the other has denied subject. portion would be In that same however, statute, said, only as limits Our statute, Legislature enumerat- insurer becomes case the other in which only ed three situations an in- insolvent. motor vehicle will be deemed an 379.- ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ within the significant that §
It
is also
“subject
meaning
UM
If the
.the words
solons
expressly
203.2
contains
provisions
cover
intended
conditions
had
the UM
the terms
should become
with respect to
age.” It reads thus:
*10
regardless
passing
“If in
the
insured vehicle
Uninsured Motorist
an
why
provisions, it
difficult
discern
the Legislature intended to nulli-
Statute
‘subject
the terms and condi-
words
the
exclusion,
fy the
it
household
could have
employed.
were
coverage’
such
tions of
so
expressedly
provided.”
‘terms’ and what ‘conditions’
What
permissible?
“
provisions have
general
‘Household exclusion’
limitations are not un-
“Such
*
**
Pre-
by this court.
upheld
objec-
been
light
statutory
reasonable
was
Legislature
cognizant
sumably
protecting
tive of
motorists
* * *
cov-
adopting
In
UM
that fact.
uninsured,
motorists who are
‘sub-
other
Legislature
specify
did
erage the
ject to the terms and
of such
conditions
Had
an exclusion would
invalid.
coverage.’
result,
the desired
the General
that been
agree
Kentucky
We
and Indiana
easily
provided.
have so
Assembly
could
regarding
language “subject
courts
affords basis for the
failure
do so
Its
coverage”
the terms
conditions of such
statute does not in-
construction
appearing in their uninsured motorist stat-
Hence,
validate
exclusion.
reasoning applies
The same
utes.
derogation
not in
exclusion’ is
‘household
equal force to
379.203.2.
the UM statute.”
at 126-27.3
Mut.
the same effect is United Farm
To
IV
(Ind.
Handley,
v.
gally entitled the driver’s estate damages from
cover and the is an
she as to her.
auto was policy cannot my opinion the uninsured motorist
exclude mandates cov- the statute
anyone for whom *12 Pridgen are Kathy Betty Bush and
erage. dissent. I therefore persons. Missouri, Respondent,
STATE DAVIS, Appellant.
Larry Dale
No. 61988. Missouri,
Supreme Court of Banc.
En
Nov. 1980. Duncan, City, ap- Kansas
Robert G. pellant. Ashcroft, Gen., Atty. Nancy Kelley,
John Gen., City, respon- Atty. Asst. Jefferson dent.