Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 35949
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | CLEMENS |
| Citation | 519 S.W.2d 378 |
| Docket Number | No. 35949 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1975 |
| Parties | Ronald MILES, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. . Louis District, Division One |
Page 378
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Lawrence O. Willbrand, St. Louis, for appellant.
Kortenhof & Ely, Joel D. Monson, St. Louis, for respondent.
CLEMENS, Judge.
Plaintiff Ronald Miles sued his automobile insurer, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, under the uninsured-motor vehicle provisions of his policy. The trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff and he appeals. We affirm.
Page 379
Plaintiff pleaded he was injured in a one-car accident while a passenger in his own automobile, then being driven by his 'uninsured' brother, who was 'negligently operating an uninsured automobile.'
Under the terms of the insurance policy defendant is obligated to pay plaintiff-insured the sums which the insured 'shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an 'uninsured motor vehicle' . . .' The policy defines 'uninsured motor vehicle' as a vehicle to which there is 'no bodily injury liability bond or liability insurance policy applicable at the time of accident . . .' Conversely, the policy declares the term 'uninsured motor vehicle' shall not include an 'insured motor vehicle.'
The issue is whether plaintiff is correct in contending his brother 'was at the time of the collision operating an uninsured automobile.' The policy language refutes this contention. Plaintiff's driver may have been an 'uninsured motorist,' but he was not driving an 'uninsured motor vehicle.' The fact the driver was uninsured does not permit the judicial finding that plaintiff's injuries were sustained due to operation of an 'uninsured motor vehicle.'
Contracting parties may provide for the insurance policy coverage they desire so long as the provisions do not violate public policy. State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission of Mo., 331 Mo. 1098, 56 S.W.2d 39; 335 Mo. 448, 73 S.W.2d 393(5) (Mo.1939), Webb v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 479 S.W.2d 148(1) (Mo.App.1972). Here, the policy's language is unambiguous and we need not look beyond it to explain it. Steinhaufel v. Reliance Insurance Companies, 495 S.W.2d 463(1) (Mo.App.1973). Nor does the language contravene public policy as set by § 379.203, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., which requires liability policies to afford coverage to insureds who are legally entitled to recover...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Ins. Co. of America v. Perala, No. 3914-III-5
...172 Ind.App. 329, 360 N.E.2d 247 (1977); Allen v. West Am. Ins. Co., 467 S.W.2d 123 (Ky.1971); Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 519 S.W.2d 378 3 Although discussion of those cases would not be useful, we note a majority of them address the family or household exclusion which has bee......
-
Harrison v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. , No. 61940
...ineligible to recover damages under the "uninsured motorist insurance" section of the policy. In Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 519 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. 1975), the court of appeals addressed a similar question concerning a one vehicle accident. There plaintiff sued his automobile ......
-
Hill v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...subject in Note, 23 Drake L.Rev. 850 (1974), at pp. 856 et seq. The case was cited and followed in Miles v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 519 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.1975); Kay v. Kay, 30 Utah 2d 94, 513 P.2d 1372 (1973). Its rationale was rejected in Rodman v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.,......
-
Hazelett v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana, No. 2-278A38
...Furguson v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York (1962), 189 Kan. 459, 370 P.2d 379; Miles v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. (Mo.App.1975), 519 S.W.2d 378. Blue Cross leans heavily on Insurance Commissioners of Indiana v. Mutual Medical Insurance, Inc. (1968), 251 Ind. 296, 241 N.E.2d 56 to su......
-
First Nat. Ins. Co. of America v. Perala, No. 3914-III-5
...172 Ind.App. 329, 360 N.E.2d 247 (1977); Allen v. West Am. Ins. Co., 467 S.W.2d 123 (Ky.1971); Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 519 S.W.2d 378 3 Although discussion of those cases would not be useful, we note a majority of them address the family or household exclusion which has bee......
-
Harrison v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. , No. 61940
...to recover damages under the "uninsured motorist insurance" section of the policy. In Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 519 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. 1975), the court of appeals addressed a similar question concerning a one vehicle accident. There plaintiff sued his automobile i......
-
Hill v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...subject in Note, 23 Drake L.Rev. 850 (1974), at pp. 856 et seq. The case was cited and followed in Miles v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 519 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.1975); Kay v. Kay, 30 Utah 2d 94, 513 P.2d 1372 (1973). Its rationale was rejected in Rodman v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.,......
-
Hazelett v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana, No. 2-278A38
...Furguson v. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York (1962), 189 Kan. 459, 370 P.2d 379; Miles v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. (Mo.App.1975), 519 S.W.2d 378. Blue Cross leans heavily on Insurance Commissioners of Indiana v. Mutual Medical Insurance, Inc. (1968), 251 Ind. 296, 241 N.E.2d 56 to su......