Jackson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 30 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 21091,21091 |
| Citation | 949 S.W.2d 130 |
| Parties | Ralph JACKSON and Ellen Jackson, his wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William F. James, Wuestling & James, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Spencer L. Edwards, Dempster, Barkett & Edwards. L.L.C., Sikeston, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Appellants appeal from summary judgment entered in favor of Respondents on whether an insurance policy issued by Appellant provided underinsured motorist coverage for Respondents.
Respondents' daughter and two other passengers were killed when the automobile in which they were riding left the roadway and overturned. The vehicle involved was insured by a policy providing limits of $50,000 per person or $100,000 per accident. These limits resulted in payment of $33,333.33 in connection with the death of Respondents' daughter. Respondents thereafter brought suit alleging that the damages exceeded the amount recovered and that the driver of the vehicle was an underinsured motorist under the terms of a policy issued to them by Appellant.
Appellant filed a counterclaim asking the court to declare that there was no coverage for Respondents' loss under the underinsured coverage provisions of the policy as the vehicle involved was not an underinsured vehicle as defined by those provisions and that Respondents could not stack their policies to meet the requirements of the underinsured motor vehicle definition.
Both sides filed motions for summary judgments on the counterclaim, stipulating to the facts. On June 19, 1996, the trial court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment on Appellant's counterclaim sustaining Respondents' motion and overruling that of Appellant. Specifically, the court found that the vehicle involved "was an underinsured vehicle as defined by the terms of the policy" issued to Respondents and Respondents "are entitled to stack their four (4) underinsured motorist policies in order to meet the definition of underinsured motor On appeal, Appellant presents two points, stating in part:
vehicle" in Appellant's policy. The court determined that no just reason for delay existed and that the decision with respect to the counterclaim was a judgment from which an appeal shall lie pursuant to Rule 74.01.
I. The trial court erred in sustaining plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in overruling defendant's motion for summary judgment because, as a matter of law ... the underlying tortfeasor, does not meet the definition of an underinsured motorist as set forth in defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America's policy.
II. The court erred in finding ... that ... underinsured motorist coverage on the four (4) motor vehicles insured under this policy could be "stacked" in order to meet the statutory definition of an underinsured motorist and, further, in finding that defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America provided "stacked" underinsured motorist coverage limits of $200,000.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellant asks, in part, that this Court review the denial of its summary judgment motion. There is no appeal from a denial of summary judgment and its denial does not present an appealable issue. DeCota v. J.E.M. Development Corp., 908 S.W.2d 884, 888 (Mo.App.1995). We therefore confine our review to the entry of summary judgment in favor of Respondents.
Summary judgment may be employed only where there are no genuine issues of fact and where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Marshall v. Northern Assurance Co. of America, 854 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Mo.App.1993). On review, this Court examines the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was rendered. Id. Because of the parties' stipulation, there are no issues of fact unresolved, and the propriety of the trial court's order sustaining Respondents' motion for summary judgment turns solely upon questions of law.
Appellant's points relied on claim that several provisions in the policy it issued unambiguously preclude Respondent from claiming coverage under the policy. By its first point, Appellant contends that because the vehicle involved does not meet the definition of an "underinsured motor vehicle" as provided in the policy, underinsured motorist coverage was unavailable.
As defined by the policy, an " 'underinsured motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which the sum of the limits of liability under all other bodily injury liability bonds and policies applicable at the time of the accident is less than the applicable limits for Underinsured Motorists Coverage under this insurance." To know whether a vehicle is underinsured for purposes of determining whether coverage is available under the Respondent's policy, a comparison of the limits of liability under other insurance policies providing coverage and the limit of liability under Respondents' policy is necessary.
The parties agree that the only other insurance policy providing coverage for the collision had a limit of liability of $100,000 per accident or $50,000 per person. They disagree, however, as to the limit of liability under the policy issued by Appellant. The policy contains the following limit-of-liability provisions under "Part C--Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage:"
A. If bodily injury is sustained in an accident by you or any family member:
1. Our maximum limit of liability for all damages ... arising out of bodily injury sustained by any one person in any such accident is the sum of the limits of liability shown in the Declarations for "each person" for Uninsured Motorists Coverage;
2. Subject to the maximum limit for "each person," our maximum limit of liability for all damages arising out of bodily injury resulting from any one accident is the sum of the limits of liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Uninsured Motorists Coverage;
...
C. The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for Underinsured Motorists Coverage, less the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or policies (other than this policy) applicable at the time of the accident, is our total limit of liability for all damages ... arising out of bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one accident.
Subject to this limit for "each person," the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for "each accident" for Underinsured Motorists Coverage, less the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds or policies (other than this policy) applicable at the time of the accident, is our total limit of liability for all damages, for bodily injury resulting from any one accident.
This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of
1. Insureds;
2. Claims made;
3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations; or
4. Vehicles involved in the accident.
If more than one vehicle is insured under this policy, or if more than one policy issued to the insured applies to the same accident, the limits may not be stacked.
Respondents insured four vehicles under the policy issued by Appellant. The declarations page indicated a limit of liability for both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to be $50,000 per person or $100,000 per accident for each vehicle. Because the limit of liability under the policy for the vehicle involved in the collision was not less than that of Respondents' policy, Appellant contends the vehicle was not underinsured.
Respondents claim the limit of liability section of the policy issued by Appellant is ambiguous as to which provision applies to underinsured motorist coverage. Under provision "A." which refers to uninsured motorist coverage, Respondents claim that they would be able to stack the limits on the four vehicles covered under the policy and thereby qualify for coverage because the total limit of liability would be greater than that of the vehicle involved. Because it is not clear that provision "A." is not meant for underinsured motorist coverage, they claim it should be construed to apply.
There are no statutory or public policy requirements in Missouri for underinsured motorist coverage. Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America, 808 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo.banc 1991). Therefore, our inquiry is limited to the policies in question.
In determining whether there is an ambiguity in the policy, the court must abide by certain rules of construction. Where insurance policies are unambiguous, the rules of construction are inapplicable, and absent a public policy to the contrary, the policy will be enforced as written. Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673, 675 (Mo.App.1996). Courts will not create an ambiguity in order to distort the language of an unambiguous insurance policy. Id. However, where provisions of an insurance policy are ambiguous, they are construed against the insurer. Id. Language is ambiguous if it is reasonably open to two different constructions and the language used will be viewed in the meaning that would ordinarily be understood by the layman who bought and paid for the policy. Id. Where there is an ambiguity, the insured are entitled to a resolution of the ambiguity consistent with their objective and reasonable expectations. Id.
The canon contra proferentum is more rigorously applied in insurance than in other contracts, in recognition of the difference between the parties in their acquaintance with the subject matter.... Insurers who seek to impose upon words of common speech an esoteric significance intelligible only to their craft, must bear the burden of any resulting confusion.
Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Ltd., 827 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Mo.banc 1992) (quoting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seeck v. Geico General Ins. Co.
...policy ambiguous. See Goza v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 972 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Mo.App. E.D.1998); Jackson v. Safeco Ins. Co., 949 S.W.2d 130, 135-36 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Krenski v. Aubuchon, 841 S.W.2d 721, 729-31 (Mo.App. E.D. 1992); Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo.......
-
Tapley v. Shelter Ins. Co.
...definition of that term. See Goza v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 972 S.W.2d 371 (Mo.App. E.D.1998); Jackson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 949 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo.App. W.D.1996); and Krenski v. Aubuchon, 841 S.W.2d 721 (Mo.......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sommers, 71340
...841 S.W.2d 721 (Mo.App. E.D.1992); Zemelman v. Equity Mutual Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo.App. W.D.1996); Jackson v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 949 S.W.2d 130 (Mo.App.1997). The language of the excess insurance clause in this case is not similar to the language of the excess insurance......
-
Goza v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.
...of Zemelman has also been found persuasive, and adopted, by the Southern District of this Court. Jackson v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 949 S.W.2d 130, 135-36 (Mo.App. S.D.1997). Courts may not create an ambiguity in order to distort the language of an unambiguous insurance policy.......