Maxon v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., WD
| Decision Date | 03 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 791 S.W.2d 437 |
| Parties | Jewell MAXON, et al., Respondents, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant. 42458. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lance W. Lefevre, Kansas City, for appellant.
Patrick B. Starke, Blue Springs, for respondents.
Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.
The Maxons, policy holders, brought this declaratory action against their insurer, Farmers Insurance Company, to stack their two policies where their damages exceeded the insurance provided by a tortfeasor. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Maxons.
Jewell Maxon was a passenger in a truck driven by her husband. A negligent driver collided with their truck inflicting extensive injuries to Jewell which caused her four surgeries with at least one future operation contemplated. The tortfeasor had insurance in the amount of $100,000, the policy limits of which were tendered by State Farm Insurance Company to the Maxons. The potential damages far exceeded that amount. The Maxons had two $100,000 policies with the appellant which, as pertinent here, provided:
We will pay all sums which an insured person is legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured person. The bodily injury must be caused by accident and arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.
* * * * * *
3. Uninsured motor vehicle means a motor vehicle which is:
a. Not insured by a bodily injury liability bond or policy at the time of the accident.
b. Insured by a bodily injury liability bond or policy at the time of the accident which provides coverage in amounts less than the limits of Uninsured Motorist Coverage shown in the Declarations. (Emphasis added.)
* * * * * *
With respect to any accident or occurrence to which this and any other auto policy issued to you by any member company of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies applies, the total limit of liability under all the policies shall not exceed the highest applicable limit of liability under any one policy.
The Maxon's motion contended the emphasized portion of the Farmers policies made the tortfeasor's auto "uninsured," since it was insured for less than the "stacked" amount of their insurance policies. In essence, they maintain, the policy language itself allows an "underinsured" vehicle to be considered an "uninsured" vehicle. They ask for an interpretation disregarding the "two or more cars," or anti-stacking clause in view of the language of section 3b, which treats uninsured and underinsured as being the same. Farmers denied the policies could be stacked for determining the total coverage available, and denied the policies should be interpreted as treating the "underinsured" tortfeasor's car as "uninsured." It alleges there is no public policy nor contract language to support the trial judge's ruling.
The court has concluded there is no public policy to treat underinsured coverage as being congruent with the required uninsured coverage. Geneser v. State Farm, 787 S.W.2d 288 (Mo.App.1989). Therefore, this case turns on whether the contract written by Farmers, and strictly construed against it, Lutsky v. Blue Cross Hosp. Service, Inc., 695 S.W.2d 870, 874 (Mo.1985); Bellamy v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., 651 S.W.2d 490 (Mo. banc 1983), is ambiguous, or can be interpreted as treating underinsured coverage the same as uninsured coverage.
If a contract promises something in one point and takes it away in another, there is a resultant ambiguity, Behr v. Blue Cross Hosp. Service, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo. banc 1986), and any ambiguity or doubt as to meaning is construed against the insurance company. Id. 255-56; Mauer v. State Employees' Retirement Sys., 762 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Mo.App.1988).
There is no new public policy question involved in the case at bar--here there is simply an insurance contract which treats uninsured and underinsured as being one in the same, coupled with existing case law allowing the stacking of uninsured policies. Had Farmers not chosen in its policy to define uninsured as including underinsured, this case would never have arisen. As opposed to Geneser, supra, where the issues only involved pure underinsured provisions, the Farmers language here lumps the proverbial apples and oranges and calls this class apples. In Geneser, this court felt the anti-stacking provision as to underinsured coverage should prevail, was clear as written, Eagle Star Co. v. Family Fun, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Mo.App.1989), and would not be overborne by public policy. Adams v. Julius, 719 S.W.2d 94, 101 (Mo.App.1986).
At this point some background on the progression of the case law enunciating a public policy allowing the stacking of multiple uninsured provisions is in order:
1) In order to give motorists who purchased insurance coverage for those who didn't, § 379.203, RSMo.1986 was enacted. Every policy had to contain (and the motorist had to pay for) uninsured motorist coverage. Bergtholdt v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., 691 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Mo.App.1985).
2) In Cameron Mutual Insurance Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. banc 1976), the injured motorist had multiple policies, all with the required uninsurance clause, but the contract language prohibited "stacking." As a matter of public policy the contract language fell because to do so "would deny the named insured the benefit of some of the coverage which was required and which had to be paid for." Hines v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 656 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Mo. banc 1983).
3) In Bergtholdt, supra, the plaintiff owners suffered $100,000 in damages. They had two 25/50 policies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moens
...at 4 (quoting Murray v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 429 F.3d 757, 764 (8th Cir. 2005) (in turn quoting Maxon v. Farmers Ins. Co., 791 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Baileys contend that the Policy meets this definition of ambiguity because it......
-
Hopkins v. American Economy Ins. Co., WD
...in the case at bar is similar to that in Krombach, where the Supreme Court, noting this court's opinions in Maxon v. Farmers Insurance Co., 791 S.W.2d 437, 438-39 (Mo.App.1990) and Tegtmeyer v. Snellen, 791 S.W.2d 737 (Mo.App.1990), said when underinsured coverage is lumped into the same pr......
-
Oak River Ins. Co. v. Truitt
...it away at another is ambiguous. Behr v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv. Inc., 715 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo.1986) (en banc); Maxon v. Farmers Ins. Co. Inc., 791 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Mo.Ct.App.1990). Ambiguous language is construed against the insurer. Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (M......
-
Maso v. Farmers Ins. Co.
...provisions for UM and UIM coverage are lumped together in a policy.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Maxon v. Farmers Ins. Co. , 791 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (holding that where an insurance policy provides coverage for a UIM but also defines a UIM as a UM, intra-policy sta......