Hempen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 66144

• Decision Date: 02 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 66144,66144
• Citation: 687 S.W.2d 894
• Parties: Iris HEMPEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 894

687 S.W.2d 894

Iris HEMPEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 66144.

Supreme Court of Missouri En Banc.

April 2, 1985.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1985.

Gerre S. Langton, Sam P. Rynearson, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Norman A. Selner, Corey S. Berger, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

DONNELLY, Judge.

DefendantState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from a declaratory judgment in which the trial court found plaintiff, Iris Hempen, entitled to recover under the medical payments coverage in her State Farm policy insuring her 1969 Volkswagen.Plaintiff was injured while riding in a 1967 Chevrolet she owned jointly with her husband, Lloyd H. Hempen, who was driving at the time of the accident.Both cars were insured by State Farm under separate but identical policies providing "medical payments coverage" in the amount of $5,000.The parties stipulated that plaintiff's injury-related medical bills exceeded $10,000.State Farm paid $5,000 on the Chevrolet policy, but refused payment under the Volkswagen policy.The issue before this Court is whether plaintiff, who owned, either alone or with her husband, both cars and purchased coverage in separate but identical policies, may stack the medical payments coverage in the Volkswagen policy upon that in the Chevrolet policy.

When there is no statute or public policy requiring the inclusion of coverage in an automobile policy, the insured and insurer are free to define coverage by their agreement.Douthet v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 546 S.W.2d 156, 157(Mo. banc 1977).Unless policies are ambiguous, they must be enforced by the courts as written.Farm Bureau Town &amp County Ins. Co. of Missouri v. Hughes, 629 S.W.2d 595, 598(Mo.App.1981).

In Cameron Mutual Insurance Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538(Mo. banc 1976), we considered the question of stacking medical payments coverage when a single policy insured two automobiles and contained no language preventing such stacking.The single policy was ambiguous as to how the medical payments provisions were to apply with respect to the multiple vehicles.We held such provisions to apply separately and individually to each rather than on a blanket or unified basis.This was a consequence of the effect of the separability clause in the policy, the payment of two separate premiums as if separate policies had been issued, and the fact that the insurer could have limited coverage by so stating in clear and unambiguous language.Accordingly, we held that absent language specifically prohibiting such a result, each separate premium paid for specified medical payments coverages produces for the insured that much additional protection for medical expenses incurred in a covered accident.

In this case, however, the vehicles were insured in separate policies.The Madden ambiguity, which resulted from insuring multiple vehicles in a single policy, is not present.Rather, the relevant portions of each policy unambiguously limit medical payments coverage to injuries caused by the specific vehicle covered by the policy.Thus, the medical payments section in each policy states (emphasis in the policies, indicating defined terms):

We will pay medical expenses for bodily injury sustained by:

1. a. the first person named in the declarations,

b. his or her spouse; and

c. their relatives.

These persons have to sustain the...