ST. LOUIS – A federal judge granted partial summary judgment to Safeco in a dispute with a driver involved in a two-vehicle crash.
In an opinion issued May 24, District Judge Rodney Sippel at the Eastern District of Missouri ruled "because (plaintiff James) Danner is not entitled to 'stack' the (underinsured motorist insurance) coverage for both vehicles under the unambiguous language of his insurance policy, Safeco is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of stacking."
On Nov. 26, 2016, the ruling states Danner was driving a Ford Escape insured through Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois when it was struck, resulting in substantial injuries. The at-fault driver had a car insurance policy with a limit of $100,000, and that carrier settled with Danner for the full amount, though Danner said his damages exceeded $300,000.
The ruling states Danner sued Safeco in state court over allegations of breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay after the company denied his request to recover additional amounts under his policy’s under/uninsured motorist coverage, instead offering a $2,000 settlement. After removing the petition to federal court, Safeco moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Sippel couldn’t stack coverage for his Escape and a Lexus also insured on the same policy.
According to Sippel’s opinion, Danner’s Safeco policy provided coverage of $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident.
Sippel cited several paragraphs from Danner’s policy, including a provision for multiple vehicles, which read: “If this policy insures two or more autos or if any other auto insurance policy issued to you by us applies to the same accident, the maximum limit of our liability shall not exceed the highest limit applicable to any one auto. In no event shall the limit of liability of two or more motor vehicles or two or more policies be added together, combined or stacked to determine the limit of insurance coverage available to you or any insured.”
Another relevant portion read: “If more than one vehicle is insured under this policy, or if more than one policy issued to the insured applies to the same accident, the limits applicable to Underinsured Motorists Coverage may not be stacked.”
Sippel said Missouri law doesn’t mandate uninsured motorist coverage, so the only guiding language is the text of Danner’s policy. While some policies do permit the type of stacking Danner requested in filing his claim, Sippel said absent contractual ambiguity, courts are bound to enforce the strict language of a policy.
“Danner’s policy contains three unambiguous anti-stacking provisions,” Sippel wrote, pointing to the liability limit provision, other insurance clause and two or more autos insured provision.
Danner said the language in his contract was similar to that of an insured client in a 2009 Missouri Supreme Court opinion in Ritchie v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co., but Sippel quoted the court’s opinion as acknowledging “the special situation where the insured is injured while occupying a non-owned vehicle.”
Since Danner was driving his own car at the time of the crash, Sippel continued, the Ritchie opinion doesn’t apply. Further, Danner’s other insurance clause “includes additional language not found in the Ritchie policy, namely that coverage will not ‘exceed the highest applicable limit for any one vehicle under any insurance providing underinsured motorist coverage or either a primary or excess basis,’” Sippel wrote.