Rodriguez v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America, No. 73222

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtROBERTSON; BLACKMAR, C.J., RENDLEN, HIGGINS, COVINGTON and HOLSTEIN, JJ., and FLANIGAN; BILLINGS
Citation808 S.W.2d 379
Docket NumberNo. 73222
Decision Date03 May 1991
PartiesGail and Matias RODRIGUEZ, Appellants, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Page 379

808 S.W.2d 379
Gail and Matias RODRIGUEZ, Appellants,
v.
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 73222.
Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.
May 3, 1991.

Page 380

Carrie L. Kmoch, St. Louis, for appellants.

Eugene K. Buckley, John S. McCollough, St. Louis, for respondent.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

This case involves the underinsured motorist coverage of an automobile insurance contract. Appellants, Gail and Matias Rodriguez, appeal the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, General Accident Insurance Company of America (General Accident), claiming that the underinsured motorist coverage of the insurance contract between the parties is ambiguous. Relying on that ambiguity, the Rodriguezes urge that this Court should apply an "objective reasonable expectation" standard to find that their underinsured motorist coverage is excess coverage and that they are entitled to the limits of that coverage irrespective of payments received from the tortfeasor. They also contend that they are entitled to stack the underinsured motorist coverage.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. We granted transfer to consider this case together with Sisco v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 806 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. banc 1991). Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. We have jurisdiction. Following oral argument, we determined that the cases were significantly different and warranted separate consideration. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I.

On September 11, 1987, appellant Gail Rodriguez received injuries when the vehicle she was driving collided with a vehicle operated by John Fruehwirth. Fruehwirth's insurance company paid Rodriguez $50,000, the limits of liability of Fruehwirth's insurance policy. Rodriguez sought the balance of her damages from her insurance carrier, General Accident, under the policy's "underinsured motorist coverage."

The face sheet of the policy in question shows various coverages for two automobiles including underinsured motorist coverage with a limit of $50,000 on each vehicle. The face sheet also reveals that General Accident did not charge an additional premium for the underinsured motorist coverage. The salient provisions of the

Page 381

Underinsured Motorist Coverage Endorsement are as follows:

Underinsured Motorist Coverage

INSURING AGREEMENT

A. We will pay damages which an "insured" is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an "underinsured motor vehicle" because of "bodily injury;"

1. Sustained by an "insured";

* * * * * *

C. "Underinsured motor vehicle" means a land motor vehicle or trailer of any type to which a bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident but its limit for bodily injury liability is less than the limit of liability for this coverage.

* * * * * *

LIMIT OF LIABILITY

A. The limit of liability shown in the schedule for this coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages resulting from any one accident. This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of:

1. "Insureds";

2. Claims made;

3. Vehicles or premiums shown in the Declarations; or

4. Vehicles involved in the accident

However, the limit of liability shall be reduced by all sums paid because of the "bodily injury" by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be legally responsible. This includes all sums paid under part A of this policy.

(Emphasis added).

General Accident declined to pay citing the contractual language. The Rodriguezes brought this action seeking both to recover under the uninsured motorist coverage and to have their underinsured motorist coverage stacked, thereby claiming a total of $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. General Accident filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court sustained the motion holding that Fruehwirth was not an "underinsured motorist" under the insurance contract. This appeal followed.

II.

Summary judgment is an extreme, drastic remedy and may be employed only where there are no genuine issues of fact and where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Elliott v. Harris, 423 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Mo. banc 1968). On review, this Court examines the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was rendered. Gast v. Ebert, 739 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Mo. banc 1987). The Rodriguezes admit that Fruehwirth was covered by a policy of insurance with $50,000 limits and that they have recovered $50,000 from Fruehwirth's insurer. With this admission any factual dispute in this case evaporates. As there are no issues of fact unresolved, the propriety of the trial court's order sustaining General Accident's motion for summary judgment turns solely upon questions of law.

A.

The Rodriguezes argue that their insurance contract with General Accident is ambiguous and that they are entitled to a resolution of the ambiguity consistent with their objective reasonable expectations, citing Estrin Construction Co., Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 612 S.W.2d 413 (Mo.App.1981). Their argument leads them to conclude that application of the objective reasonable expectations doctrine renders the underinsured motorist coverage as excess coverage and that they are entitled to their policy limit, $50,000, in coverage beyond that which Fruehwirth's insurer previously paid.

In Robin v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo. banc 1982), this Court described the objective reasonable expectations doctrine as a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
208 practice notes
  • Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, Case No. 4:16–CV–806 (CEJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • January 27, 2017
    ...or, in order to enforce a particular construction which it might feel is more appropriate." Rodriguez v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. of Am. , 808 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo. 1991) (en banc).The UIM Coverage endorsement in the policy involved in this case provides as follows:I. UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERA......
  • Perkinson v. Courson, NO. 4–17–0364
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 12, 2018
    ...in the meaning of the words used in the contract.’ " Id. at 337 (quoting Rodriguez v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America , 808 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo. 1991) ).¶ 81 Here, plaintiff acknowledged signing the Release at issue upon her arrival at Cross Country. In fact, she signed three such......
  • Travis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 4:21-CV-00558-SPM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • January 21, 2022
    ...are determined by the contract entered between the insured and the insurer.’ ") (quoting Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am. , 808 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. banc 1991) ).For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that the Illinois choice of law provision should be honored, and the C......
  • Dusharm v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 2:97-CV-371.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • April 29, 1999
    ...proceeds." See, e.g., Alguila v. Safety Ins. Co., 416 Mass. 494, 624 N.E.2d 79, 80 (1993); Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co., 808 S.W.2d 379, 382-83 (Mo.1991) (en banc). The fact that "limits of liability" refers to policies "applicable to the accident," not policies applicable to the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
208 cases
  • Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stuart, Case No. 4:16–CV–806 (CEJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • January 27, 2017
    ...or, in order to enforce a particular construction which it might feel is more appropriate." Rodriguez v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. of Am. , 808 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo. 1991) (en banc).The UIM Coverage endorsement in the policy involved in this case provides as follows:I. UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERA......
  • Perkinson v. Courson, NO. 4–17–0364
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 12, 2018
    ...in the meaning of the words used in the contract.’ " Id. at 337 (quoting Rodriguez v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America , 808 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo. 1991) ).¶ 81 Here, plaintiff acknowledged signing the Release at issue upon her arrival at Cross Country. In fact, she signed three such......
  • Travis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 4:21-CV-00558-SPM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • January 21, 2022
    ...are determined by the contract entered between the insured and the insurer.’ ") (quoting Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am. , 808 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. banc 1991) ).For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that the Illinois choice of law provision should be honored, and the C......
  • Dusharm v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 2:97-CV-371.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • April 29, 1999
    ...proceeds." See, e.g., Alguila v. Safety Ins. Co., 416 Mass. 494, 624 N.E.2d 79, 80 (1993); Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co., 808 S.W.2d 379, 382-83 (Mo.1991) (en banc). The fact that "limits of liability" refers to policies "applicable to the accident," not policies applicable to the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT