## 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 b ecause 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 w e reverse.-2- I.

In December 20 17 , Micheel suffered more th an $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 A merican Family extended from July 2015 to January 7, 201 6

. That policy insured up to $100,000 in UIM coverage and included an offset provision reducing an y 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 receiv ed a summary that did not discuss any
limitation s on coverage.

American Family re fused to pay the full $100,000, pointing to the offset provision . B ecause 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. Th e 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 ori ginal policy

— which includ ed 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 —rema ined 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 th e 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. 3 d 614 , 617 (Mo. 2017) (en banc ). I n 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.” G eico Cas. Co. v. Clampitt , 521 S.W.3d 290, 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (citation omitted) (cleaned up).

T he insurance contract is unambiguous : the offse t provision applies. American Family has already paid $50,000, so no thing further is required

. 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

.

______________________________