Jaudes v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:13–CV–1068–SPM. |
| Citation | 11 F.Supp.3d 943 |
| Parties | James JAUDES, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Allison F. Stenger, Steven V. Stenger, James John Lang, III, Nicole Burlison Knepper, Klar and Izsak, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
James A. Wilke, Daniel E. Wilke, Wilke and Wilke, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on defendant Progressive Preferred Insurance Company's (“Progressive's”) motion for summary judgment and plaintiff James Jaudes' (“Jaudes' ”) cross-motion for summary judgment.1 For the following reasons, the Court will grant Progressive's motion for summary judgment and deny Jaudes' cross-motion for summary judgment.
Jaudes was injured on January 28, 2010, when his car collided with a vehicle being operated by Derick Cook (“Cook”). Cook carried liability insurance with policy limits of $50,000, and that amount was tendered to Jaudes. Although the total amount of Jaudes' damages is unclear from the record, in his Amended Complaint Jaudes asserts that his damages far exceed the limits of liability insurance tendered by Cook. At the time of the accident, Jaudes was insured under an auto liability insurance policy issued by Progressive. Progressive's policy provided underinsured motor vehicle coverage in the amount of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence for each of three vehicles owned by Jaudes, including the vehicle involved in the collision with Cook. Jaudes made demand on Progressive for payment of $150,000 under the underinsured motorist (“UIM”) provisions. Progressive refused to make payment, and Jaudes brought this action for breach of contract.2
Progressive moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jaudes is not entitled to coverage because the definition of underinsured motor vehicle used in its policy is unambiguous and Cook's vehicle does not meet the policy's definition of an underinsured motor vehicle. Progressive also posits that its policy does not allow Jaudes to stack the three UIM limits of liability to create a total combined policy limit of $150,000. (Doc. 21, 22). Jaudes filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, contending that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in light of an opinion that was issued by the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District just as the parties were completing their briefing of Progressive's motion for summary judgment. More specifically, Jaudes contends that under Fanning v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Co., 412 S.W.3d 360 (Mo.Ct.App.2013), the policy's definition of underinsured motor vehicle is rendered ambiguous by the declarations page and other provisions in the policy. Jaudes further contends that, notwithstanding Progressive's arguments to the contrary, Missouri law permits stacking of the three UIM limits in Progressive's policy.
The standards applicable to summary judgment motions are well settled, and they do not change when both parties have moved for summary judgment. See Wermager v. Cormorant Twp. Bd., 716 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir.1983) ; Tower Rock Stone Co. v. Quarry & Allied Workers Local No. 830, 918 F.Supp.2d 902, 905 (E.D.Mo.2013). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; Hill v. Walker, 737 F.3d 1209, 1216 (8th Cir.2013). The movant “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion” and must identify “those portions of [the record] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the movant does so, the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quotation marks omitted). “On a motion for summary judgment, ‘facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts.’ ” Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Where parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, each summary judgment motion must be evaluated independently to determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Husinga v. Federal–Mogul Ignition Co., 519 F.Supp.2d 929, 942 (S.D.Iowa 2007). “[T]he filing of cross motions for summary judgment does not necessarily indicate that there is no dispute as to a material fact, or have the effect of submitting the cause to a plenary determination on the merits.” Wermager, 716 F.2d at 1214.
The material facts are not in dispute. On January 28, 2010, Jaudes was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Derick Cook, in which Jaudes was injured. Jaudes claims that, as a result of the collision with Cook, Jaudes sustained damages in excess of $50,000.4 At the time of the accident, Jaudes was insured under an auto liability insurance policy issued by Progressive. At the time of the accident, Cook's vehicle was insured with policy limits of $50,000. The policy limits of $50,000 were tendered to Jaudes.
The car Jaudes was driving at the time of the accident was insured under Progressive Policy No. 31245848–0, along with two other cars owned by Jaudes. The parties do not dispute the policy language contained therein.
The declarations page contains an “Outline of Coverage” that lists each of Jaudes' vehicles. For each vehicle, there is a line indicating that the coverage includes “Underinsured Motorist” with “Limits” of “$50,000 each person/$100,000 each accident.” A separate underinsured motorist premium is listed for each vehicle.
The underinsured motorist provisions in the Progressive policy are contained in Part III(B) and provide in relevant part as follows:
In its motion for summary judgment, Progressive posits that Jaudes' breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law because Jaudes is not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage for his damages under the terms of the policy. Progressive advances two arguments in support of its position. First, Progressive contends that the definition of “underinsured motor vehicle” used in the policy is unambiguous, and that the undisputed facts show that Cook's vehicle does not meet that definition because his vehicle's liability limit is not “less than” the Progressive policy's $50,000 UIM limit. Second, Progressive contends that because its policy contains clear and unambiguous anti-stacking provisions, Cook's vehicle cannot be shoe-horned into the policy's definition of an “underinsured motor vehicle” by construing the policy to permit stacking...
To continue reading
Request your trial