Jones v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge
• Citation: Jones v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 632 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. App. 2021)
• Decision Date: 24 August 2021
• Docket Number: WD 84018
• Parties: Courtney JONES, Respondent, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Appellant.

632 S.W.3d 482

Courtney JONES, Respondent,

v.AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Appellant.

WD 84018

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: August 24, 2021

Samuel M. Wendt and Nick Hillyard, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Susan Ford Robertson and J. Zachary Bickel, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant.

Before Division Three: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer and W. Douglas Thomson, Judges

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. ("American Family") appeals from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri's ("trial court") entry of summary judgment in favor of Ms. Courtney Jones ("Jones") on her claim for additional uninsured motorist ("UM") benefits under two policies insuring two vehicles she was not driving at the time of her accident. We reverse the trial court's judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background¹

The parties jointly stipulated to the following facts. On August 4, 2017, Jones was traveling on Southwest 3rd Street in Lee's Summit, Jackson County, Missouri, when a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction turned left in front of Jones, causing a wreck. At the time of the wreck, Jones was insured under two automobile insurance policies and one motorcycle policy issued by American Family: Policy No. 2528-6929-01-08-FPPA-MO insured a 2014 Toyota Sequoia that was owned by Jones ("Sequoia policy"); Policy No. 2528-6929-04-17-FPPA-MO insured a 1989 Toyota Camry owned by Jones ("Camry policy"); and Policy No. 2528-6929-02-11-SCYC-MO, under which Jones was insured, insured a 2009 Big Dog Motorcycle ("Cycle policy") (all three policies are referred to collectively as "the policies"). The wreck was the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the other driver, who was an uninsured motorist as that term was defined in the policies. When the wreck occurred, Jones was driving the 2014 Toyota Sequoia, which was insured under the Sequoia policy.

The relevant language in each of the policies is identical (with one non-material exception). The declarations page of each of the policies provided:

DECLARATIONS

....

PLEASE READ YOUR POLICY

....

COVERAGES AND LIMITS PROVIDED

....

ADDITIONAL ENDORSEMENTS THAT APPLY TO YOUR POLICY:

....

UNINSURED MOTORIST – BODILY INJURY ONLY

$100,000 EACH PERSON $300,000 EACH ACCIDENT

The insuring agreement of each of the policies provided:

AGREEMENT

We agree with you , in return for your premium payment, to insure you subject to all the terms of this policy. We will insure you for the coverages and the limits of liability as shown in the Declarations of this policy.

Number 12 of the GENERAL CONDITIONS of the Sequoia and Camry policies pertained to "Two Or More Cars Insured By Us ." The Missouri Changes endorsement modified the provision as follows:

MISSOURI CHANGES

....

B. Paragraph 12. Two Or More Cars Insured By Us , is deleted and replaced with the following:

12. Two Or More Cars Insured By Us

If two or more auto insurance policies issued to you or a relative by us or any other member company of the American Family Insurance Group of companies apply to the same auto accident, the total limits of liability under all such policies shall not exceed the highest limit of liability under any one policy.

This provision does not apply to Uninsured Motorist Coverage provided to you or a relative .

The Cycle policy was the same except "Cars " and "auto" was replaced with "Cycles " and "cycle " respectively. The Uninsured Motorist Coverage-Missouri endorsement provided, in pertinent part:

UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE – MISSOURI

....

C. INSURING AGREEMENT

1. We will pay compensatory damages for bodily injury which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle .

The endorsement contained certain exclusions to coverage, including the "owned-vehicle exclusion":

D. EXCLUSIONS

1. We do not provide coverage for bodily injury sustained by any insured person :

a. while occupying , or when struck by, a motor vehicle that is not insured for this coverage under this policy if it is owned by you or any resident of your household.

The exclusions section of the endorsement concluded with a paragraph containing a "minimum-financial-responsibility clause" and an "any-other-insurance clause":

If any uninsured motorist insurance law or financial responsibility law determines that any exclusion is unenforceable, we will provide only the minimum limits required by that law. If any other insurance provides coverage up to the minimum limits required, the provisions of this coverage remain unchanged.

The limits of liability section of the endorsement provided, in pertinent part:

E. LIMITS OF LIABILITY

....

5. However, in no event shall the amount we pay to the insured person be reduced below the Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law minimum limit.

American Family paid Jones $150,000 in UM benefits: $100,000 under the Sequoia policy and the $25,000 Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL") minimum limit under the Camry and Cycle policies.

Jones filed a lawsuit against American Family seeking an additional $150,000 in UM benefits, for a total of $300,000 in UM coverage under the three policies. The parties filed a Stipulation of Uncontroverted Material Facts for the purpose of submitting cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties stipulated that Jones's damages from her injuries caused by the other driver's negligence were at least $300,000. The parties each filed motions for summary judgment seeking a determination from the trial court whether Jones was entitled, as a matter of law, to judgment in the amount of $150,000 for the remaining UM policy limits under the policies insuring the vehicles she was not driving at the time of the accident, or whether the owned-vehicle exclusions limited the available stacked coverage to the minimum provided in the MVFRL.²

In Jones's summary judgment motion, she argued that the policies issued by American Family were ambiguous, when read as a whole, because the policies unequivocally and unconditionally promised $300,000 in UM coverage but then, in a manner that would be confusing and ambiguous to a lay person, attempted to take away coverage in the exclusions section of an endorsement to the UM coverage. Jones argued that a lay person would reasonably expect to receive the total $100,000 in UM benefits under each policy reflected in the Declarations. Jones claimed that American Family was required to pay an additional $150,000 (consisting of the remaining $75,000 limits of UM liability under the Camry policy and the Cycle policy).

In American Family's competing summary judgment motion, it asserted that $150,000 was the amount of UM coverage available to Jones under the policies. It argued that the UM coverage provided by American Family to Jones contained clear and unambiguous owned-vehicle exclusions that limited the available stacked coverage to the minimum provided in the MVFRL.

The trial court denied American Family's motion,³ granted Jones's motion, and entered judgment in her favor and against American Family in the amount of $150,000 on July 31, 2020. The trial court determined that the owned-vehicle exclusion was unenforceable in all three insurance policies. The trial court concluded that the policies were:

ambiguous, when read as a whole, because the policies unequivocally and unconditionally promise $300,000 in UM coverage ... but then, in a manner that would be confusing and ambiguous to a lay person attempt to take away coverage in the Exclusions section of the Endorsement 53 to the Uninsured Motorist Coverage-Missouri.

American Family timely appealed from the trial court's judgment.

Standard of Review

Our standard of review for summary judgment is de novo. Green v. Fotoohighiam , 606 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 2020). In reviewing the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, we apply the same criteria as the trial court in determining whether summary judgment was proper. Id. "Summary judgment is only proper if the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue as to the material facts and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. Because the case was submitted on stipulated facts entered into between the parties in the proceedings before the trial court, "[t]he only question before us is whether the trial court made the proper legal conclusion from the stipulated facts." Cady v. Ashcroft , 606 S.W.3d 659, 665 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As with summary judgment, " ‘[t]he interpretation of an insurance policy, and the determination of whether coverage and exclusion provisions are ambiguous, are questions of law that [we] review[ ] de novo. ’ " Kissinger v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. , 563 S.W.3d 765, 775 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Mendenhall v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 375 S.W.3d 90, 92 (Mo. banc 2012) ). " ‘When interpreting an insurance policy, [we] give[ ] the policy language its plain meaning, or the meaning that would be attached by an ordinary purchaser of insurance.’ " Id. at 785-86 (quoting Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. , 531 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo. banc 2017) ). "If a policy is clear and unambiguous, we construe it as written." Id. at 786. "If, however, a policy is ambiguous, meaning that there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the language used in the policy so that it is reasonably open to different constructions, we must construe the policy in favor of the insured." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "In determining whether an ambiguity exists, we must evaluate the policy as a whole rather than focus on an isolated provision." Id. (citing Manner v. Schiermeier , 393 S.W.3d 58, 65 (Mo. banc 2013) ). "We will not create an ambiguity when none exists." Id. (citing Doe Run Res. , 531 S.W.3d at 511 ).

Analysis

The parties agree that there are three policies; that the Declarations...