Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. v. Dugger

• Decision Date: 28 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. SD 33484,SD 33484
• Citation: 484 S.W.3d 377
• Parties: Nationwide Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Tanya S. Dugger and Billy S. Swanson, Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

484 S.W.3d 377

Nationwide Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Tanya S. Dugger and Billy S. Swanson, Defendants–Respondents.

No. SD 33484

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One .

Filed: January 28, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 23, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied May 3, 2016

Attorneys for Appellant: Kevin E. Myers and John F. Cooney of St. Louis, MO.

Attorney for Respondent: Michael A. Moroni of Bloomfield, MO.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

Nationwide Insurance Company of America (Nationwide) appeals from a judgment ordering it to pay Tanya Dugger (Tanya) and Billy Swanson (Billy) $25,000 in uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for damages arising from the death of their daughter, Victoria Swanson (Victoria).¹ Tanya had an automobile policy with Nationwide (hereinafter referred to as the Policy) that insured two vehicles. The Policy contained anti-stacking language purporting to limit Tanya to a single payment of $25,000 for her UM coverage. The trial court concluded that the anti-stacking language was unenforceable because it violated the public policy of this state established by § 379.203.² We agree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background

The material facts are undisputed. On June 5, 2012, Victoria was a passenger in an uninsured automobile. Victoria was killed when that automobile was struck by a train. The Policy was in effect on that date. Victoria met the Policy's definition of an insured, and the parties agree that the damages arising from Victoria's death exceed $50,000. According to the Declarations, the Policy insured two vehicles and included UM coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Those limits appear under a heading: "Uninsured Motorists (Per Policy) Bodily Injury" (bold emphasis in original). The Policy listed a single premium of $45.35 for UM coverage. The "Limit of Liability" section of the UM Coverage Endorsement stated:

The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each person for [UM] Coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss of services or death, arising out of "bodily injury" sustained by any one person in any such accident....

This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of:

1. "Insureds";

2. Claims made;

3. Vehicles shown in the Declarations; or

4. Vehicles involved in the accident.

(Bold emphasis added.)

By agreement of the parties, Nationwide paid $25,000 in UM benefits to Tanya and Billy and then filed a declaratory judgment action to litigate the issue of whether it owed another $25,000 from that coverage. Thereafter, Tanya and Nationwide filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court decided that the anti-stacking language in the Policy was unenforceable because it violated Missouri public policy established by § 379.203. The court entered judgment against Nationwide and ordered it to pay an additional $25,000 in UM coverage to Tanya and Billy. This appeal followed.

484 S.W.3d 379

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04(c); ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid–Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 380 (Mo. banc 1993). The amount of UM coverage provided by Nationwide involves the interpretation of its insurance policy and the application of § 379.203 to that policy. Both are questions of law which we review de novo. See Karscig v. McConville, 303 S.W.3d 499, 502 (Mo. banc 2010) ; see Rutledge v. Bough, 399 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Mo.App. S.D.2013).

Discussion and Decision

In Point I, Nationwide contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the Policy unambiguously provides a single unit of UM coverage on a per-policy basis with a per-person limit of $25,000. We find no merit in this argument.

We begin our analysis by reviewing § 379.203. In relevant part, this statute states:

No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto ... in not less than the limits for bodily injury or death set forth in section 303.030, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are

...