Corrigan v. Progressive Insurance Co.

Citations: 411 S.W.3d 306; 2013 WL 4815158; 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1033Docket: No. ED 99380

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; September 10, 2013; Missouri; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Patrick and Sean Corrigan appeal a trial court decision that denied their motion for summary judgment while granting summary judgment to Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company regarding underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The Corrigans sought a declaration for $600,000 in UIM benefits after their father, Christopher Corrigan, was killed in a motorcycle accident. Progressive asserted that the policy did not allow stacking of UIM benefits, limiting coverage to $300,000, despite the Corrigans arguing for stacking based on their understanding of the policy's ambiguity.

The insurance policy covered two motorcycles owned by Christopher Corrigan, with a $300,000 limit for UIM coverage for each. After settling for $25,000 from the driver responsible for the accident, the Corrigans claimed $600,000 from Progressive, contending that they should be able to stack the UIM coverage from both motorcycles. Progressive maintained that the policy's language unambiguously prohibits stacking.

In April 2012, the Corrigans filed a petition for declaratory judgment, asserting their rights to UIM coverage. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, with Progressive arguing that the policy clearly forbids stacking. The trial court ruled in favor of Progressive, leading to the Corrigans' appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the policy unambiguously prohibits stacking of UIM benefits, leaving no material facts in dispute and justifying Progressive's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred by denying their motion for summary judgment and granting Progressive’s motion, claiming the insurance policy issued to Corrigan is ambiguous regarding the stacking of Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage benefits. They argue that any ambiguity should favor the insured, allowing for the stacking of benefits. The court reviews summary judgments de novo, assessing the record favorably for the non-moving party. Summary judgment is affirmed if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Interpretation of insurance policies is also reviewed de novo.

The trial court did not provide reasons for its ruling but it is presumed to align with Progressive’s arguments. Progressive asserted that UIM coverage is not mandated by Missouri law, differentiating it from Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage, which requires stacking under specific circumstances. The insurance policy’s terms govern UIM coverage, and Progressive claimed its policy unambiguously prohibits stacking, limiting liability to $300,000. Missouri law allows for stacking of UM coverage when multiple policies or coverages exist, but does not impose a similar requirement for UIM coverage, allowing insurers to include anti-stacking provisions. If a policy is ambiguous regarding stacking, the interpretation will favor the insured, with ambiguity defined as language subject to multiple reasonable interpretations.

Policy provisions must be interpreted collectively rather than in isolation, and a contract is deemed ambiguous only if it contains contradictory clauses. When an insurance policy is clear, it will be enforced as written unless public policy dictates otherwise. Disagreements over the interpretation of terms do not create ambiguity, and one must not distort the policy language to generate ambiguity. The insurance contract itself is the primary source for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties involved.

The declarations page of Corrigan's insurance policy explicitly states that coverage explanations are contained within the policy and that limits for one vehicle cannot be combined with those of another. Both the 2007 Harley-Davidson and the 2009 BMW have Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage with a limit of $300,000 for each accident. The terms define a "covered motorcycle" and outline the UIM coverage, which provides that if premiums are paid, the insurer will cover damages resulting from accidents involving underinsured vehicles.

The Limits of Liability clause specifies that the stated limit applies regardless of the number of claims or vehicles involved and prohibits duplicate payments for the same damages. If multiple vehicle policies are held, payment will not exceed the highest limit available under any one policy. The declarations and UIM sections of the policy clearly indicate that stacking of UIM coverage is not permitted, as the limits for vehicles are not combinable. Thus, despite the clear language disallowing stacking, the interpretation of the policy must consider the entirety of the document.

Appellants argue that the insurance policy is ambiguous due to Progressive's inconsistent terminology, specifically the presence of the term "stacked" in the Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage provision while the Underinsured Motorist (UIM) section lacks similar language. They contend this discrepancy implies that stacking UIM coverage is permissible. The court references the case of Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., where a similar argument regarding anti-stacking language in different sections of a policy was rejected. The court in Taylor found that the differences in language did not inherently create ambiguity, as the broader wording in the UIM section was intentional to prevent stacking across policies. 

The court notes that while the UM section uses stronger language regarding stacking, Appellants fail to provide authority to support their claim of ambiguity based solely on differing terminology. The UIM section clearly stipulates that the limits of liability apply regardless of the number of covered vehicles or policies, prohibiting the combination of limits across multiple policies. The court emphasizes that the ability to stack UM coverage does not affect the UIM coverage and cites that Missouri has not established a public policy regarding UIM stacking. Moreover, it distinguishes the current case from previous rulings, clarifying that the UM and UIM provisions are separate and distinct in this policy, each containing its own specific terms and conditions.

The term "stacked" in the uninsured motorist (UM) coverage section does not create ambiguity regarding underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Appellants argue that the use of "vehicle" in the motorcycle insurance policy is unclear since it is not defined, suggesting that motorcycles might not be considered vehicles under the policy. They reference the declarations page, which states that limits for a vehicle cannot be combined with limits for another vehicle, implying such limitations may not apply to motorcycles. Appellants also cite specific policy language regarding UM and UIM coverage that highlights the treatment of multiple policies and limits.

Courts generally interpret undefined terms in insurance policies based on their ordinary meanings as understood by laypersons. In this context, the definition of "vehicle" encompasses motorcycles, indicating that the policy’s restrictions regarding vehicles also apply to motorcycles. The use of "vehicle" throughout the policy serves a consistent purpose: to prevent stacking of coverage across all policies held by the insured, not limited to motorcycle policies. As a result, the policy is deemed unambiguous, and the appellants have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Consequently, the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Progressive, confirming that the policy does not allow for stacking of UIM coverage, is upheld. The court notes that while damages have not been specified, there is no dispute regarding them in this matter.