Jensen v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 72266.,WD 72266. |
| Citation | 349 S.W.3d 369 |
| Parties | Mildred A. JENSEN, Respondent,v.ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,andDwight Douglas, Personal Representative of the Estate of Woodrow W. Jensen, Deceased, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Supreme Court Denied Aug. 30, 2011.
Application for Transfer Denied
Oct. 25, 2011.
Robert J. Luder and John Vaught, Overland Park, KS, for appellant.Bruce Alan Copeland, Joplin, MO and Neal Stauffer, Tulsa OK, for respondents.Division Four: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, P.J., JAMES M. SMART, JR., J., and GREGORY B. GILLIS, Sp.J.JAMES M. SMART, JR., Judge.
Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) appeals a judgment in favor of Mildred Jensen in an Equitable Garnishment Action in the amount of $50,000. Allstate contends that the trial court erred in awarding judgment in an amount that nullifies the effect of the “household exclusion” in the policy. Allstate contends that the partial exclusion unambiguously applies to Mildred and limits her recovery to the $25,000 she has already received from Allstate. We agree. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
On July 2, 2004, Woodrow Jensen and his wife, Mildred Jensen, were involved in an auto accident with an ambulance while Woodrow was driving. Mildred was injured, and Woodrow died as a result of the accident. Mildred and Woodrow were both named insureds under a motor vehicle policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company, which was in effect at the time of the accident. The policy provided $50,000 of liability coverage for bodily injury per person.
Shortly after that accident, Mildred, as a claimant, contended that her husband's negligence caused her injuries. She demanded the $50,000 policy limits (for liability) from Allstate. Allstate offered $25,000 as its limit of liability, noting that the policy included a “household exclusion” providing that liability coverage for claims of household members was capped at the $25,000 minimum required by the Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”).
The policy stated it was a “legal contract between you and us.” The portion of the policy listing “definitions used throughout the policy” included:
2. “Allstate,” “We,” “Us,” or “Our” means the company shown on the policy definitions.
....
11. “You or Your” means the policyholder named on the Policy Declarations and that policyholder's resident spouse.
The portion of the policy (Part 1) dealing specifically with liability coverage states that, in return for the payment of premiums:
Allstate will pay damages which an insured person is legally obligated to pay because of
1. bodily injury sustained by any person, and
2. damage to, or destruction of, property, including loss of use.
Part 1 also included the following definition for that part of the policy:
“Insured Person(s)” means:
1. While using your insured auto:
c. and any other person using it with your permission.
Then the “Exclusions—What is Not Covered” portion of Part 1 included, inter alia, the following:
Allstate will not pay for any damages an insured person is legally obligated to pay because of:
1. bodily injury ... resulting from the [use] of the insured auto by any person as an employee of the United States government while acting within the scope of that employment....
....
3. bodily injury or property damage arising out of auto or motor vehicle business operations.... However, this exclusion does not apply to you, resident relatives, partners or employees of the partnership in which you or a resident relative are a partner, when using your insured auto.
4. bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use of a non-owned auto in any business or occupation of an insured person. However, this exclusion does not apply while you, your chauffeur, or domestic servant are using an auto or trailer.
....
6. bodily injury to an employee of any insured person arising out of or in the course of employment.
7. bodily injury to a co-worker injured in the course of employment. This exclusion does not apply to you.
8. bodily injury to any person related to an insured person by blood, marriage, or adoption and residing in that person's household. This exclusion applies only to the extent that the limit of liability for this coverage exceeds the minimum limit of liability required by the Financial Responsibility Law of Missouri.
Relying on the household exclusion, Allstate refused to pay the $50,000 and offered to settle the claim for the $25,000 step-down limit it believed applicable under the above provision.
Mildred rejected Allstate's position and filed suit in the Newton County Circuit Court against her husband's estate, of which she was presumably the primary beneficiary. Mildred claimed injuries and damages resulting from the negligence of Woodrow. On March 25, 2009, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Mildred in the amount of $616,000 against Woodrow's estate. The court entered judgment against the estate in that amount, plus costs and post-judgment interest.
Mildred then commenced a statutory garnishment proceeding in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, pursuant to section 379.200,1 against Allstate to pursue her claim of $50,000 under the policy on June 19, 2009. Section 379.200 provides that upon the recovery of a final judgment for bodily injury, if the defendant in such action was insured against such claim, the judgment creditor is entitled to apply the insurance to the satisfaction of the judgment; and if the judgment is not satisfied within thirty days, the judgment creditor may proceed in equity against the defendant and the insurance company to reach and apply the insurance money to the satisfaction of the judgment. Woodrow's estate also brought a claim against Allstate, claiming breach of duty to defend and bad faith failure to settle. As to the equitable garnishment claim, Mildred and Allstate submitted cross-motions for summary judgment for determination of the insurance coverage issue. Allstate and Mildred submitted the issues on stipulated facts. On December 17, 2009, the Jackson County Circuit Court entered judgment for plaintiff, determining that $50,000 was the amount that was due to Mildred under the policy because $50,000 was the per person limit of liability.
The trial court's reasoning is set out in the judgment. In pertinent part, the judgment stated, inter alia:
5. The policy's household exclusion states:
Allstate will not pay for damages an insured person is legally obligated to pay because of:
....
8. bodily injury to any person related to an insured person by blood, marriage, or adoption and residing in that person's household. This exclusion applies only to the extent that the limit of liability for this coverage exceeds the minimum limit of liability required by the Financial Responsibility Law of Missouri.
The terms in boldface type are defined in the policy. The term “any person” is not defined in the policy.
6. By its express terms Allstate's household exclusion does not exclude coverage to “you” or “your.” Because the policy defines “you” and “your” to mean the policyholder named on the Policy Declarations and because Mildred Jensen is named as such on the Policy Declarations, the household exclusion does not apply to the bodily injuries of Mildred Jensen.
7. In addition, in construing the terms of Allstate's policy, this Court must apply the meaning which would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding if purchasing insurance and resolve ambiguities in favor of the insured. Jones v. Mid–Century Insurance Co., 287 S.W.3d 687, 690 (Mo. banc 2009).
8. Based on that standard, this Court finds, in the alternative, that when analyzing the term “any person” in the context of the whole policy and Plaintiff's injuries, it becomes ambiguous. This result stems from the policy itself. The Allstate policy specifically designates Mildred Jensen with the following defined terms: “you,” “your” and “insured person.” Since there is no definition of “any person,” a lay person who purchased this policy could reasonably find there to be two different interpretations. One could assume “any person” to be an all encompassing term or that it is interpreted reasonably as “any person” other than those individuals specifically defined by the policy's definitions. Accordingly, the policy language is open to two interpretations-either coverage or noncoverage. Hence, there is an ambiguity because there is “uncertainty of meaning.”
9. Because this Court must construe an insurance policy against the insurer and in favor of the insured, it therefore finds that Allstate's household exclusion is ineffective to limit coverage to its insured, Mrs. Jensen.
10. Versaw v. Versaw, 202 S.W.3d 638 (Mo.App. S.D.2006), controls the outcome of the issues presented to this Court by the parties. Allstate's reliance on Kearbey v. Kinder, 972 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App.1998), is misplaced and is not reasonable.
11. Allstate's policy provides $50,000 of coverage for Mildred Jensen's injuries.
The court entered judgment accordingly as to the Jensen–Allstate claim.
The next day, Allstate filed a Motion to Amend or Modify Judgment, disagreeing with the court's determination of coverage and the language of the court's judgment, particularly the reference in the judgment characterizing Allstate's position as “unreasonable.” The circuit court did not rule on Allstate's motion within 90 days; thus, Allstate's motion was deemed overruled and final. Rule 81.05(a)(2)(A).2 Although there remained another claim in the case between the estate (through the personal representative) and Allstate, the trial court found no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), and found the Jensen–Allstate judgment final and subject to immediate appeal. Allstate appeals.
Allstate's first point does not allege trial court error. Instead, it alleges that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Nat'l Property & Cas. Co. v. Wyatt
...exists must be assessed by an examination of the exclusionary clause in the context of the entire policy. Jensen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 349 S.W.3d 369, 377 (Mo.App. W.D.2011). The personal liability provisions of the ANPAC policy appear to provide broad coverage for the insured: We will pay,......
-
Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Wyatt
...exists must be assessed by an examination of the exclusionary clause in the context of the entire policy. Jenson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 349 S.W.3d 369, 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). The personal liability provisions of the ANPAC policy appear to provide broad coverage for the insured:We will pay......
-
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cronin
...was unambiguous and excluded claim by a member of the insured's family residing in the insured's household); Jensen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 349 S.W.3d 369, 380 (Mo.Ct.App.2011) (household exclusion that excluded coverage for claim brought by any person related to insured by marriage and livin......
-
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Integrity Land Title Co.
...exclusion is applicable, and [the Court] will construe the exclusion clause strictly against the insurer.’ ” Jensen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 349 S.W.3d 369, 374–75 (Mo.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Oakley Fertilizer v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 276 S.W.3d 342, 351 (Mo.Ct.App.2009)). See also Burns v. Smith, 30......