Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Debbie S. YARBROUGH, Appellant, David K. YARBROUGH, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 00-2109.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2001.
    Filed Feb. 27, 2001.
    
      Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Debbie S. Yarbrough, seeking additional coverage for bodily injuries she sustained in an automobile accident, contends that she, like her husband, David Yarbrough, is insured under the underinsured motorist coverage of a commercial policy issued by American States Preferred Insurance Company insuring' “David Yarbrough dba Yarbrough Company.” The Underinsured Motorist Coverage endorsement of this policy excludes underinsured motorist coverage for “bodily injury sustained by any person while occupying or struck by any vehicle owned by you or any family member that is not a covered auto.” When the accident in which she suffered bodily injuries occurred, Mrs. Yarbrough was occupying a 1993 Dodge Intrepid. This auto was not a covered auto under the commercial policy. The endorsement also prorides an exception to the exclusion: “However, this exclusion does not apply to you.” The policy defines “you” as the named insured. The District Court determined that the policy is unambiguous and that Mrs. Yarbrough was not a named insured on the policy at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the court concluded that coverage of her claim for bodily injury is not provided by the exception to the bodily-injury exclusion, and granted summary judgment in favor of American States. Mrs. Yarbrough appeals.

For reversal, Mrs. Yarbrough makes several arguments, all attacking the District Court’s conclusion that she was not a named insured on the policy in question. Having reviewed the case and considered all of her arguments, we are satisfied that the District Court correctly entered summary judgment for American States. No error of fact or law appears, and an opinion by this Court would add nothing of substance to the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court.

Based on the reasoning of the District Court, with which we entirely agree, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.