Definition of "Underinsured Motor Vehicle" Is Not Ambiguous

In Burger v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 4:14-CV-393-RWS (E.D. Mo., March 31, 2015), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri concluded the insurer's definition for "underinsured motor vehicle" was clear and unambiguous where the insurer defined an "underinsured motor vehicle" as one with liability limits less than those of the UIM limits in the insurer's policy. Rejecting various ambiguity challenges, the District Court found the insured was not entitled to recover UIM benefits under the insurer's policy's because the accident did not involved an "underinsured motor vehicle" in that the tortfeasor's liability limits were equal to the insurer's UIM limits. The Burger decision demonstrates, despite the many pro-policyholder decisions addressing UIM coverage in Missouri, that satisfaction of the definitional requirement remains a critical factor in determining the availability of UIM coverage.

Uninsured Motorist Set Off Provision Held Valid   

In Hayes-Schneiderjohn v. GEICO General Ins. Co., No. 4:14-CV-01547-JCH (E.D. Mo., April 10, 2015), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, in finding the insured plaintiffs were not entitled to UM coverage under a GEICO UM coverage part, upheld the policy's set-off provision as a complete defense to coverage. The District Court explained that since a joint tortfeasor had paid $100,000 in settlement to GEICO's insureds, the insureds were not entitled to UM coverage because the policy's UM limit was $100,000, despite the insureds' contention that their damages were caused by an uninsured phantom vehicle. 

Court Upholds "Owned Auto" Exclusion 

The Missouri Court of Appeals, in Mendota Ins. Co. v.  Lawson, No. WD77483 (Mo. App. W.D., March 24, 2015), held the insurer's "owned auto" exclusion in an automobile liability policy was clear and unambiguous and, thus, barred coverage for a wrongful death action brought against its insured who was operating an owned vehicle that was not a covered auto under the insurer's policy. The Court, in ruling for the insurer, further held the exclusion did not violate Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and, thus, the insurer was not required to provide the statutory minimum coverage. The Court explained the Missouri Supreme Court's recent decision in Dutton v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. SC94075 (Mo. banc, Feb. 3, 2015), controlled the question. In Dutton, the Supreme Court held that when a policy unambiguously bars coverage for the insured's use of an owned vehicle that is not designated as a covered auto under the policy, the Financial Responsibility Law does not require the statutory minimum coverage.

Insurer in Equitable Garnishment Action May Not Take Credit for a Set Off 

Court Allows Class Certification in an Asbestos Medical Monitoring Case  

Lawyer not Covered under Errors & Omissions Policy for Business Transactions with a Client    

When a lawyer enters into a business relationship with a client involving loans for which the insured lawyer received commissions, the lawyer's Errors & Omissions coverage did not cover the lawyer's actions in a subsequent lawsuit brought against the lawyer by the client. The Missouri Supreme Court, in Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., No. SC94250 (Mo. banc, March 10, 2015), held the insurer's "legal representative of investors" exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for the claim. The exclusion barred coverage for claims arising out of the lawyer's representation of investors in an enterprise in which the lawyer owns an equity interest or for which the lawyer receives a commission from an entity other than the investor. Based on the facts of the case, the Missouri Supreme Court held that no reasonable attorney purchasing the subject insurance policy would understand the policy to cover the lawyer's conduct in advising the client on the loans.

Official Immunity Applies to Fireman Responding to an Emergency 

A fireman, who responded to an emergency in his own vehicle, was protected by the official immunity doctrine. In Rhea v. Sapp, No. WD77301 (Mo. App. W.D., March 3, 2015), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that, even though the defendant fireman was speeding when he struck the plaintiffs, he was cloaked with official immunity and could not be sued because he was responding to an emergency at the time of the accident.

Defendant in Auto Collision Trial Gets Unanimous Verdict

Jacqueline M. Kinder received a defendant's jury verdict in the City of St. Louis in a case in which the plaintiffs claimed over $40,000 in medical expenses. The plaintiffs claimed Jackie's client ran into their vehicle while the defendant claimed the plaintiffs had cut him off on the highway. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Jackie's client.     

Appellate Victory for Rental Car Company Insurer

Russell F. Watters, on behalf of a national rental car company and its insurer, obtained an appellate court victory when the appellate court held there was no coverage for an unauthorized driver of a rental car. The appellate court, in ruling for Russ's clients, ruled that prohibitions in the rental agreement concerning the illegal use of the rental vehicle were valid and enforceable, and, thus, barred coverage for the vehicle's driver who had been sued by a third party who was injured as a result of an accident involving the rental vehicle.

Insurance Company Wins First-Party Fraud Case

David P. Bub brought in a defendant's jury verdict in a first-party fraud case in Morgan County, Missouri, on behalf of his insurance company client. The jury, in ruling for the insurer, found the insured had committed fraud in a $125,000 property damage claim.