A Missouri couple could not prove their insurance company owed them damages in an auto insurance complaint filed with in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to a May 4 court opinion.
The federal court determined Christopher and Sandra Lee are not entitled to a payment from County Preferred Insurance Company (County Preferred) via the details of their policy agreement and ruled in favor of County Preferred.
The Lees were insured with County Preferred as the company provided three car insurance policies to the family, with a limit of $100,000. The Lees added the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to each policy. They attempted to cash in on the policy after Christopher was hit by an at-fault driver. The driver did have insurance with a policy limit of $100,000. His insurance company reached a settlement agreement with Christopher and Sandra for the entire amount.
The Lees then filed a complaint and requested more funds from County Preferred via the UIM terms of their insurance policies. County Preferred responded with a motion for a declaratory judgement that would state the company is not ordered to pay the family. The Lees filed a counterclaim for a declaration that County Preferred owed them $100,000 under the UIM coverage agreement. They also made claims of “unjust enrichment, fraud, and vexations refusal to pay.”
The court detailed why it ruled in favor of County Preferred, and against the Lees.
It first stated Missouri does not require any car insurance companies include UIM coverage. Therefore, the details of any UIM coverage would be decided by both parties involved in the policy agreement. It also pointed out the driver who struck Christopher was not an uninsured motorist.
The court disagreed with the Lees attempt to stack their insurance policies and their argument that the “other insurance” clause in their policies makes the UIM factor ambiguous. The “other insurance” clause states, “If there is other applicable uninsured – underinsured motorists insurance that cover a loss, we will pay our proportionate share of that loss. Our share is the proportion our limits of liability bear to the total of all applicable limits.” The court did not agree with this argument.
Considering this, the district court granted County Preferred its counterclaim for declaratory relief. It also dismissed the Lees claims of fraud, vexations refusal to pay and unjust enrichment.