United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-1800

___________________________ 

Janet Micheel

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: April 8, 2021

Filed: June 17, 2021

____________ 

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

KOBES, Circuit Judge.

After Janet Micheel was injured in a car accident, she sought underinsured 

motorist (UIM) benefits from American Family Mutual Insurance Company. 

American Family paid only half of its $100,000 policy limit because of an offset 

provision in the policy. Micheel sued, claiming the offset provision did not apply. 

The district court agreed and granted her summary judgment. American Family 

appeals, and we reverse. 
-2- 

I. 

In December 2017, Micheel suffered more than $150,000 in injuries in a car 

accident. The other driver had an insurance policy that covered up to $50,000 in 

injuries, so Micheel contacted her insurer, American Family, asking for $100,000 in 

UIM benefits. 

Micheel’s initial policy from American Family extended from July 2015 to 

January 7, 2016. That policy insured up to $100,000 in UIM coverage and included 

an offset provision reducing any UIM recovery by amounts paid “by or on behalf of 

the owner or operator of the underinsured motor vehicle.” D. Ct. Dkt. 16-2 at 24. 

When the policy period lapsed, Micheel renewed her insurance under a provision 

that allowed the policy to “be continued for successive policy periods by the payment 

of the required premium on or before the effective date of each policy period.” D. 

Ct. Dkt. 16-2 at 12. After renewal, American Family did not send Micheel the terms 

of her new policy. Instead, she received a summary that did not discuss any 

limitations on coverage. 

American Family refused to pay the full $100,000, pointing to the offset 

provision. Because Micheel received $50,000 from the other driver, American 

Family claimed she was entitled to only $50,000 in UIM coverage. 

Micheel filed suit. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of 

whether the offset provision applied and whether American Family owed Micheel 

an additional $50,000. The district court granted summary judgment to Micheel, 

finding that the summary created an ambiguity as to the continued applicability of 

the offset provision. American Family appealed. 

II. 

“We review the district court’s summary judgment decision, including its 

interpretation of the contract and state law, de novo.” Yang v. Farmers New World 
-3- 

Life Ins. Co., 898 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2018). Missouri law applies. When 

construing the terms of an insurance policy in Missouri, a court applies the meaning 

that “would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding if 

purchasing insurance,” and resolves any ambiguities in the policy in favor of the 

insured. Marrs v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 522 S.W.3d 926, 928 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). 

“Ambiguity exists when there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the 

meaning of the language in the policy. Language is ambiguous if it is reasonably 

open to different constructions.” Id. (citation omitted) (cleaned up). 

The terms of the original policy—which included the offset provision—

govern here. Micheel took out a “continuing” insurance policy, “which is renewable 

for successive coverage periods when premiums are paid as they fall due.” 

Hennessey v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 904 S.W.2d 73, 75 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “While 

the renewal of an insurance policy constitutes a separate and distinct contract for the 

period of time covered by the renewal, it is nevertheless a contract with the same 

terms and conditions as those contained in the policy which is renewed.” Rice v. 

Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 102 S.W.2d 147, 151 (Mo. Ct. App. 1937). By 

continuing to pay her insurance premiums, Micheel obtained new policy periods, but 

the terms of her initial policy—including the offset provision—remained the same. 

Micheel’s argument to the contrary falls short. She says American Family 

created ambiguity in the insurance policy by issuing the summary. But the summary 

most closely resembles a declarations page, which “state[s] the policy’s essential 

terms in an abbreviated form.” Owners Ins. Co. v. Craig, 514 S.W.3d 614, 617 (Mo. 

2017) (en banc). In Missouri, “a policy is not ambiguous just because its broad 

statement of coverage in the declarations page is later cabined by policy definitions 

or exclusions.” Geico Cas. Co. v. Clampitt, 521 S.W.3d 290, 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 

2017) (citation omitted) (cleaned up). 

The insurance contract is unambiguous: the offset provision applies. 

American Family has already paid $50,000, so nothing further isrequired. American 

Family is entitled to summary judgment.
-4- 

III. 

The judgment of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________