Gillispie v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 23 June 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 4:14–CV–585 RLW.,4:14–CV–585 RLW. |
Parties | Irene GILLISPIE, Plaintiff, v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
John A. Lally, Rhodes and Lally, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
John A. Mazzei, Scott C. Harper, Aaron I. Mandel, Brinker and Doyen, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22).
On December 10, 2010, Admiral Gillispie's motor vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by Terry Laney. (Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("DSUMF"), ¶¶ 5–6).1 Irene Gillispie is the surviving spouse of Admiral Gillispie. (DSUMF, ¶ 3). There are no surviving children or any other parties entitled to recover under Section 537.080, R.S.Mo. (DSUMF, ¶ 4). The $25,000 limits of liability of Terry Laney's policy were paid to Plaintiff Irene Gillispie by Terry Laney's insurance carrier. (DSUMF, ¶ 8).
Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company ("Twin City") issued an automobile insurance policy, police number 55PHL427436 ("the Policy"), to Plaintiff and Admiral Gillispie. (DSUMF, ¶¶ 9, 18, 21). The Policy provides coverage on four (4) separate vehicles—a Pontiac Grand Prix, a Lincoln Town Car, a GMC Sierra, and a Cadillac DeVille—each with underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $50,000 per person. (DSUMF, ¶¶ 19, 20). Plaintiff alleges she has a right to stack the underinsured motorist coverage, for a total of $200,000, provided on each of the four (4) vehicles covered under the terms of the policy. Each count of Plaintiff's Petition alleges coverage for a separate vehicle insured under the terms of the Policy, resulting in four (4) counts alleging the right to stack underinsured motorist coverage. Count V of Plaintiff's Petition alleged a claim for vexatious refusal to pay against Twin City, but Plaintiff later dismissed that count without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 28, 29).
Endorsement A–6193–0 to the Policy provides:
This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of:
If there is other applicable insurance available under one or more policies or provisions of coverage that is similar to the insurance provided by this endorsement:
The Policy also provides, in relevant part:
TWO OR MORE AUTO POLICIES
If this policy and any other auto insurance policy issued to you by us apply to the same accident, the maximum limit or our liability under all of the policies shall not exceed the highest applicable limit of liability under any one policy.
* * *
DEFINITIONS
* * *
Other words and phrases are defined. They are in bold face when used.
D. "Bodily injury" means bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death that results.
Plaintiff seeks damages as part of a wrongful death action for injuries suffered by Admiral Gillispie, not based upon her own bodily injuries. Twin City paid one $50,000.00 underinsured motorist policy limit, pursuant to the parties' partial settlement. (ECF No. 27). Twin City agreed to pay Plaintiff, as the spouse/ "family member" of decedent Admiral Gillispie the $50,000 underinsured motorist limit. Plaintiff seeks the additional amount of $150,000.00 in underinsured motorist coverage.
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) ; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Id.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. " ‘Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.’ " Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) ).
I. Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment
The Eighth Circuit has clearly recognized that insurance companies can prohibit stacking of underinsured motorist coverage as a matter of contract law:
As a matter of public policy, Missouri courts have invalidated "attempts by insurance companies to prohibit the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage." Jordan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 741 F.3d 882, 884 (8th Cir.2014) (emphasis added). But "[b]ecause Missouri does not require UIM coverage, ‘the existence of the coverage and its ability to be stacked are determined by the contract entered between the insured and the insurer.’ " Daughhetee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 743 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir.2014) (quoting Rodriguez v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo.1991) (en banc)). Consequently, "general rules of contract construction apply," and the "key" question is whether the policy unambiguously prohibits stacking or "is reasonably open to different constructions" as to the permissibility of stacking. Id. at 1131–32 (quotations omitted). If the former is true, we must enforce the contract to prohibit stacking; if the latter is true, the policy is ambiguous and we must construe the policy to permit stacking. See id. at 1132.
Midwestern Indem. Co. v. Brooks, 779 F.3d 540, 545 (8th Cir.2015). Therefore, the Court looks to whether the Policy at issue in this case is ambiguous and whether it clearly prohibits stacking.
First, the Court recognizes the well-established rule that any ambiguity in an insurance contract must be construed against the drafter, that is, the insurer. Sargent Const. Co., Inc. v. State Auto. Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir.1994) (); Robin v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv., Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Mo.1982) (same). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Lee
...issue here ambiguous. See also, Midwestern Indem. Co. v. Brooks , 779 F.3d 540, 546–47 (8th Cir. 2015) ; Gillispie v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. , 112 F.Supp.3d 900, 904–05 (E.D. Mo. 2015).Because the Lees are not entitled to UIM coverage under the unambiguous provisions of their policies, Cou......
-
Nunnally v. Stillwater Ins. Co.
...Insurance provision of the UIM coverage. Therefore, the Policy's UIM coverage may not be stacked. See Gillispie v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 112 F. Supp. 3d 900, 904-05 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (applying Missouri law) (following Brooks to find an "other insurance" clause regarding excess insurance th......
-
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC
... ... Laycock, Esq., Maschoff Brennan, Salt Lake City, UT; and Lawrence M. Shapiro, Esq., and X. Kevin Zhao, ... ...