O'rourke v. Esurance Ins. Co
Decision Date | 17 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. ED 94330.,ED 94330. |
Parties | Michael O'ROURKE, Appellant, v. ESURANCE INSURANCE CO. and, Geico General Insurance Co., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
325 S.W.3d 395
Michael O'ROURKE, Appellant,
v.
ESURANCE INSURANCE CO. and, Geico General Insurance Co., Respondents.
No. ED 94330.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District,Division One.
Aug. 17, 2010.
David C. Knieriem, Law Offices of David C. Knieriem, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.
Russel F. Watters, Patrick A. Bousquet, Matthew P. Diehr, Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Resp. Esurance Insurance Co.
Kevin B. Behrndt, James C. Morris, Danna McKitrick, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for Resp. Geico General Insurance Co.
KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
Michael O'Rourke (Appellant) appeals the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Judge Edward Sweeney presiding, regarding its decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Respondents. We Affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
On 28 July 2007 Appellant was driving with his wife. Appellant lost control of his 2006 Jeep Wrangler and rolled down an embankment. Appellant's wife sustained injuries and asserted a claim against Appellant in an amount in excess of $100,000. Previously, Esurance issued a policy to Appellant and Wife, in effect at the time of the accident, which insured the vehicle Appellant was driving as well as a 2004 Chevrolet Silverado.
The Esurance Policy included the following provision:
We do not provide Liability Coverage for any “insured” for “bodily injury” to you or any “family member” to the extent that the limits of liability for this coverage exceed the limits of liability required by the Missouri Financial Responsibility Law.
The Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) requires liability coverage for bodily injury in the amount of $25,000. MO. ST. § 303.190 et seq.
The Esurance policy includes limits of liability coverage as follows:
The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each person for Bodily Injury liability is our maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss or services or death, arising out of “bodily injury” sustained by any one person in any one auto accident. Subject to this limit for each person, the limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each accident for Bodily Injury Liability is our maximum limit for liability for all damages for “bodily injury” resulting from any one auto 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 Declaration; or
4. Vehicles involved in the accident.
Respondent GEICO issued a policy of insurance to Appellant's son who resided in Appellant's home and was related to Appellant by blood. The GEICO policy provides that the only covered vehicle on that policy is a 2006 Chevrolet. The 2006 Jeep Wrangler driven by Appellant at the time of the accident was not owned by the GEICO insured. The GEICO insured was not operating nor occupying the 2006 Jeep Wrangler at the time of the accident.
Appellant filed a claim against Esurance and Geico alleging that the Esurance policy provided coverage beyond $25,000 and that Appellant was covered by his son's Geico policy. Esurance and Geico filed motions for summary judgment stating that Appellant's claims were outside of the respective policies. The trial court found that the policy's language were unambiguous and granted the motions for summary judgment.
The standard of review on appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment is essentially de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). When reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment, this court views the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. Id. Summary judgment will be upheld on appeal only if this court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Topps v. City of Country Club Hills, 236 S.W.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dutton v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...grant of summary judgment, this court views the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. O'Rourke, 325 S.W.3d at 397. The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law that we also determine de novo. Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Palazzolo
...Id. The fact that the parties disagree over the policy's interpretation does not render a term ambiguous. O'Rourke v. Esurance Ins. Co. , 325 S.W.3d 395, 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). "[A]mbiguity exists when there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the language in th......
-
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Morton
...Id. The fact that the parties disagree over the policy's interpretation does not render a term ambiguous. O'Rourke v. Esurance Ins. Co., 325 S.W.3d 395, 398 (Mo.Ct.App.2010). "[A]mbiguity exists when there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the language in the po......
-
Ballas Nails & Spa, LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.
...The mere "fact that parties disagree over the policy's interpretation does not render a term ambiguous." O'Rourke v. Esurance Ins. Co. , 325 S.W.3d 395, 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). The PolicyThe Travelers policy at issue here is for commercial liability and business property insurance. It cove......