# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 38 81

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Kell y Jo rd an ; Ro be rt J or da n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Safe co Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny of Il li no is

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 13

Fil ed : J an ua ry

15 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Kell y Jo rd an ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r

of Safe co In su ran ce Co m pa ny of Ill in oi s. Jo rd an su ed Safe co se ek in g to “ st ack ” th e

un de rin su red m ot or is t co ve rag e fro m va rio us po li ci es sh e an d he r hu sb an d, R ob ert

Jo rd an
, h a d t a ke n ou t wit h Safe co fo r th ei r fiv e ve hi cl es

. The di st ric t co ur t

de te rm in ed th at th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Ri tc hi e v. All ie d Pro pe rty& Cas ua lt y In su ran ce Co

., 30 7 S.W .3d 13 2 (Mo

. 20 09 ), whi ch pe rm it te d th e st ack in g

of un de rin su red m ot or is t co ve rag e, was li m it ed to th e sp eci al si tu at io n whe re th e

in su red is oc c u p yi n g a ve hi cl e th e in su red do es no t own

. W e di sa gr ee wit h th e

di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of Ri tc hi e’s ho ld in g, an d th eref or e we rev ers e th e gr an t

of su m m ary jud gm en t an d rem an d th is m at te r fo r en try of pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t

in fav or of J or da n a nd for fur th er co ns id erat io n c on si st en t wi th th is ho ld in g.

I.

In 20 09

, Kell y Jo rd an was walk in g acro ss th e st reet at an in te rs ect io n whe n sh e

was st ru ck by a car. Jo rd an su ffer ed in juri es an d lo st wag es

. The dr iv er’s in su ran ce

co m pa ny pa id it s li m it of $1 00 ,0 0 0 t o J o r d an an d he r hu sb an d. At th e ti m e of th e

acci de nt , Jo rd an was a na m ed in su red on th ree Safe co In su ran ce Co m pa ny p ol ic ie s

co ve rin g fiv e di ffer en t ve hi cl es sh e own ed wit h he r hu sb an d. The po li ci es pr ov id ed

fo r $1 00 ,00 0 in un de rin su red m ot or is t co ve rag e (UIM) fo r each of th e fiv e ve hi cl es

. Jo rd a n s o u g h t p ay m en t of $5 00 ,00 0 fro m Safe co un de r a cl ai m th at th e dr iv er who

st ru ck he r was un de rin su red

. Safe co pa id J or da n $1 00 ,00 0 as UIM co ve rag e bu t

refu se d ad di ti on al pa y m en ts

, cl ai m in g th e po li ci es co nta ine d la nguag e th at pr oh ib it ed

th e “ st ack in g,” or c om

bi ni ng , of t he po li ci es ’ UIM co ve rag e.

The th ree po li ci es co nt ai n id en ti cal la ng ua ge th at fo rm s t h e b a si s of th e

di sa gr eem en t be twee n th e pa rti es

. The cl au se of th e po li ci es m os t rel ev an t to th is

ca s e i s pa rag rap h two of th e “ Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e: Oth er In su ran ce”

se ct io n (h erei na fte r, th e “ Oth er In su ran ce cl au se ”). It pro vi de s:

2. Any un de rin su red m ot or is t in su ran ce we pr ov id e wit h re s p ect to a

ve hi cl e y ou do no t own sh al l b e e xc es s ov er an y co ll ect ib le

un de rin su red m ot or is t i ns ur an ce.

(J .A. 11 9.)

-2

-J o r d a n br ou gh t su it in st at e co ur t se ek in g pa y m en t of $5 00 ,00 0 in UI M

co ve rag e, cl ai m in g th at sh e sh ou ld be ab le to reco ve r $1 00 ,00 0 in UIM co ve rag e fo r

each of th e fiv e ve hi cl es sh e in su red wit h Safe co

. Jo rd an al so so ug ht th e award of

st at e st at ut or y pe na lt ie s an d at to rn ey s’ fees fo r Safe co ’s al le ge d un reas on ab le refu sa l

to pa y un de r th e de sc rib ed po li ci es

. Safe co rem ov ed th e act io n to fed eral co ur t on th e

ba si s of di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. Safe co m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng th e

UIM co ve rag e co ul d no t be st ack ed an d th er efo re Jo rd an was no t en ti tl ed to

a d d i t i on al pa y m en ts no r di d Safe co un reas on ab ly refu se to pa y un de r th e po li c i e s

. Jo rd an m ov ed fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t, se ek in g a de cl ara t i o n th at th e UIM

co ve rag es un de r th e rel ev an t po li ci es were su bjec t to st ack in g. The di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed Jo rd an ’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t, g ran te d S afec o’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t, an d di sm is se d Jo rd an ’s cl ai m s, ho ld in g th at th e Ri tc hi e de ci si on
, whi ch pe rm it te d th e st ack in g of UIM co ve rag e un de r a si m il ar Oth er In su ran ce

cl au se
, on ly ap pl ie s to si tu at io ns whe re th e in su red is oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed ve hi cl e

an d th us th e Oth er In su r a n c e c la us e in th e Safe co po li ci es was no t ap pl ic ab le to

Jo rd an be cau se sh e was a pe de st ria n. The di st ric t cou rt fur th er he ld th at

, ab se nt th e

ap pl ic ab il it y of th e Oth er In su ran ce clau se
, th e po li ci es un am bi gu ou sl y pr oh ib it th e

“ st ack in g” of UIM c o v e rag e. Jo rd an no w ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t

m is ap pl ie d R it ch ie

.

II.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy an d it s gr an t

of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. See Secu ra In s. v. Hor iz on Pl um bi ng
, In c., 67 0 F.3 d

85 7, 86 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). A di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an ts su m m ary jud gm en t “ if th ere

is no ge nu in e is su e of mat e r i a l f a c t an d th e in su rers are en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w.” Id

. “ St at e la w go ve rn s th e in te rp ret at io n of in su ran ce po li ci es whe n

fed eral juri sd ic ti on is ba se d on di ve rs it y of ci ti zen sh ip .” Id

. Bo th pa rti es ag ree th at

Mi ss ou ri l aw ap pl ie s t o t he po li ci es in qu es ti on

.

-3

-A.

Mi ss ou ri co ur ts ha ve he ld th at th ere are pu bl ic po li cy r e a s o n s fo r req ui rin g

un in su red m ot or is t co ve rag e, an d th us at te m pt s b y in su ran ce co m

pa ni es to pro hi bi t

th e st ack in g of un in su red m ot or is t co ve rag e ha ve be en in va li da te d. Hall v. Alls ta te

In s. Co ., 40 7 S .W .3d 60 3, 6 07 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 20 12 ). Bec au se si m il ar pu bl ic po li cy

r e a so ns are no t pr es en t fo r UIM co ve rag e in Mi ss ou ri, ho wev er, po li ci es ca n b e

dr aft ed in a m an ne r th at pr o h i b i t s t he “ st ack in g,” or co m bi ni ng
, of UIM co ve rag e

fro m m ul ti pl e po li ci es

. See Lon g v. Sh el te r In s. Co s., 35 1 S.W .3d 69 2, 69 6- 97 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 11 ); Ly

nc h v. Sh el te r Mu t. In s. Co

., 32 5 S.W .3d 53 1, 53 9 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 10 ). W he n th e la ng ua ge pr oh ib it in g “ st ack in g” is cl ear an d un am bi gu ou s, in su red s

m ay reco ve r UIM be ne fit s fro m on ly a si ng le po li cy as a m at te r of co nt ract ua l rig ht

. Lon g, 3 51 S.W .3d at 6 97

.

Alt ho ug h co ur ts sh ou ld ev al ua te in su ran ce po li ci es as a who le

, Seec k v. Geic o

Gen

. In s. Co

., 21 2 S.W .3d 12 9, 13 3 ( M o

. 2 00 7)

, is su es ari se in co nt ract di sp ut es

whe n po li ci es co nt ai n cl au se s th at cl ai m to pr o h i bi t “ st ack in g” an d al so co nt ai n

cl au se s th at ap pe ar to au th or iz e “ st ack in g.” W he n th is ha pp en s, an am bi gu it y oc cu rs
,

an d co ur ts are ob li ga te d to res ol ve th e am bi gu it y in fav or of th e in su red

. See Man ne r

v

. S ch ie rm ei er, 39 3 S.W .3d 58

, 65 (Mo

. 20 13 ) (“ Co nf li ct s an d in co ns is te nc ie s

be twee n di ffer en t po li cy pr ov is io ns
, wit h on e se em in g to de ny co ve rag e bu t th e ot he r

se em in g to gr an t it

, wil l ren de r a po li cy am bi gu ou s, an d su ch a n a mb i g u i ty wil l be

i n t e r pr et ed in fav or of th e in su red .”). Que st io ns of co nt ract in te rp ret at io n are ve r y

sp eci fic to th e po li ci es in te rp ret ed

, an d th us co ur ts m us t ex erci se care in ap pl y in g cas e

ho ld in gs th at ha ve in te rp ret ed po li ci es no t i de nt ic al to th e p ol ic y at i ss ue

.

B.

The rel ev an t po li cy la ng ua ge fro m th e Oth er In su ran ce cl au se in th is cas e an d

in Ri tc hi e are es se nt ia ll y id en ti cal

. Bec au se th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e

-4

-Oth er In su ran ce pr ov is io n in Ri tc hi e crea te d an am bi gu it y th at pe rm it te d th e st ack in g

of UI M co ve rag e, Safe co arg ue s th at th e Oth er In su ran ce cl au se in th is po li cy on ly

ap pl ie s to si tu at io ns whe re, as in Ri tc hi e, th e in su r e d is oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed

ve hi cl e. Safe co ad m it te d at or al arg um en t th at if Jo rd an ha d b e e n i n ju r ed whi le

oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed ve hi cl e, Ri tc hi e’s ho ld in g wou ld ap pl y an d Safe co wou ld be

ob li ga te d to pa y th e UIM co ve rag e o n a l l o f th e po li ci es

. Safe co arg ue s, ho wev er,

th at be cau se Jo rd an was a pe de st ria n at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt

, th e Oth er In su ran ce

cl au se do es no t ap pl y b e c a u se it co nt ai ns a no n- own ed ve hi cl e oc cu pa nc y

req ui rem en t. Safe co m ak es th is oc cu pa nc y arg um en t on two gr ou nd s: (1 ) th e Oth er 1

In su ran ce cl au s e i n t h e po li ci es refe ren ces “ a ve hi cl e y ou do no t own ” an d co ur ts

sh ou ld th us read in to th is la ng ua ge an oc cu pa nc y req ui rem en t, an d (2 ) th e Mi ss ou ri

Su pr em e Co ur t in Ri tc hi e sp eci fi c al ly li m it ed it s ho ld in g to si tu at io ns whe re th e

in s u r ed was oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed ve hi cl e. Safe co al so arg ue s th at th e Mi ss ou ri

Co ur t of App eal s ha s de te rm in ed in Ken ne dy v. Safe co In su ran ce Co

. of Ill in oi s, 41 3

S.W .3d 14 (Mo . C t. App . 2 01 3) , a cas e in vo lv in g th e sa m e Safe co po li cy l a n g u a g e

an d co m pa rab le fact s, th at an am

bi g u i ty do es no t ex is t an d th us th e UIM co ve rag e

m ay no t be “ st ack e d

. ” A s ex pl ai ne d be lo w, no ne of th es e ba se s can wit hs ta nd

sc ru ti ny.

Fi rs t, Safe co arg ue s th at we sh ou ld read th e Oth er In su ran ce cl au se ’s refe ren ce

to “ ve hi cl e yo u do no t own ” as req ui rin g th e in su red to be oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed

ve hi cl e at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt

. Safe co co nc ed es th at UIM co ve rag e was pe rs on al

Safe co al so arg ue s th at th ere are m ul ti pl e, ov erl ap pi ng cl au se s in th e p ol ic y 1

th at cl earl y pr oh ib it st ack in g. Thi s arg um en t do es no t pr ev ai l fo r Safe co be cau se
, as
il lu st rat ed by Ri tc hi e, whe re ev en on e cl au se can be reas on ab ly in te rp ret ed to pr ov id e fo r th e st ack in g of UIM co ve rag e in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces de sp it e rep eat ed

, ge ne ral

refe ren ces in th e po li cy st at in g ot he rwis e, an am bi gu it y is crea te d. See Ri tc hi e, 30 7

S.W .3d at 1 38 (“ Any co nf li ct be twee n [t he li m it of l ia bi li ty pro vi si on an d t he ot he r
in su ran ce pr ov is io n] crea te s an am bi gu it y th at is res ol ve d in fav or of th e in su red s.”)

.

-5

-an d th us fo ll owe d Jo rd an as sh e was a pe de st ri a n

. Acco rd in gl y , Safe co pa id ou t

$1 00 ,00 0 in UIM co ve rag e to Jo rd an

. Bu t, th en Safe co in co ns is te nt ly co nt en ds th at

th e “ ex ces s” pr ov is io n of th e Oth er In su ran ce cl au se is m ean t to pr ov id e in su ran ce

co ve rag e to th e in su red on ly in ci rcu m st a nc es whe n th e in su red is in vo lv ed in th e

“ oc cas io na l an d sp or ad ic us e of ve hi cl es no t own ed by th e in su red .” Safe co

em ph as iz es th at “ th e Safe co po li ci es on ly in su red th e ve hi cl es sc he du le d on th e

po li ci es ’ Decl arat io ns an d an y no n- own ed ve hi cl e th at an in su red un de r th e po li ci es

m ig ht us e or oc cu py.” Safe co m ai nt ai ns th at to in te rp ret th e po li cy ot he rwis e wou ld

be an un au th or iz ed rewri ti ng of th e po li ci es an d a di st or ti on of th e po li ci es ’ in te nt to

on ly in su re Jo rd an whi le sh e was oc cu pyin g a ve hi cl e sh e own s or a ve hi cl e sh e do es

no t own

. In su pp or t of it s arg um en t, Safe co rel ie s on Ri tc hi e an d Cl ark v. Am eri can

Fam il y Mu tu al Ins ur an ce Co ., 92 S.W .3d 19 8 (M o. Ct . App . 20 02 ).

The Oth e r In su ran ce cl au se in th e Safe co po li ci es st at es
, “ Any un de rin su red

moto ris t in su ran ce we pr ov id e wit h res pe ct to a ve hi cl e y ou do no t own s h a l l b e

ex ces s o ve r an y

co ll ect ib le un de rin su red m ot or is t i ns ur an ce.” Whi le it m ay be th at

m os t si tu at io n s in whi ch th e in su red is ab le to co ll ect un de r th is pr ov is io n in vo lv e

cas es whe re th e in su red is oc c up y in g an un in su red ve hi cl e, no th in g in th e pl ai n

la ng ua ge of th e cl au se m an da te s th e oc cu pa nc y of a no n- own ed ve hi cl e. The cl au se
,

as writ te n, is si le nt as to oc cu pa nc y

. Thi s si le nc e sp eak s vo lu m es whe n on e co ns id ers

th at th e po li ci es sp eci fic al ly d efi ne “ oc cu pyin g” bu t th en ex cl ud e th is de fin ed te rm

fro m t he Oth er In su ran ce cl au se

. Fu rth er, Safe co do es no t di sp ut e th at it pr ov id ed

UIM co ve rag e to Jo rd an wit h res pe ct to th e in juri es sh e su ffer ed fro m b e i ng st ru ck

by th e un de rin su red m ot or is t. In li gh t of th is am bi gu it y , we are ob li ga te d to read th e

po li cy ag ai ns t Sa feco an d i n fa vo r of Jo rd an . Rit ch ie , 30 7 S .W .3d at 1 35

.

Safe co ci te s Cl ark as su pp or ti ve of it s arg um en t th at th e Oth er In su ran ce cl au se

la ng ua ge ne ces sa ril y req ui res th at Jo rd an ha ve oc cu pi ed a no n- own ed ve hi cl e. Cl ark

, ho wev er, de m on s t r a t e s w hy th e po li cy la ng ua ge he re is am bi gu ou s. In Cl ark

, th e

rel ev an t cl au se pr ov id ed

, “ Bu t, a n y i n su ran ce pr ov id ed un de r th is en do rs em en t fo r

-6

-an i n s ured pers on whi le oc cupy in g a ve hi cl e yo u do no t own is ex ces s ov er an y

si m il ar in su ran ce.” 92 S.W .3d at 20 1 (em ph as is in or ig in al ). Thu s, th e Cl ark po li cy

di d co nt ai n a sp eci fic oc cu pa nc y req ui rem en t. W ha te ve r Safe co in te nd ed whe n i t

in cl ud ed th e ph ras e “ to a v e h i c l e yo u do no t own ,” we si m pl y do no t read an

oc cu pa nc y

req ui rem en t i nt o t he pl ai n l an gu ag e of th at cl au se

. As exp la in ed be lo w,

we al so fin d un pe rs ua si ve Safe co ’s at te m pt to rel y on la ng ua ge fro m Ri tc hi e in

su pp or t o f an oc cu pa nc y

req ui rem en t.

Safe co m ai nt ai ns th at th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t in Ri t c h i e li m it ed it s

ho ld in g to si tu at i o n s i n whi ch th e in su red is oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed ve hi cl e. The

Oth er In su ran ce pr ov is io n at is su e in Ri tc hi e st at ed

, “ Any co ve rag e we pr ov id e wit h

res pe ct to a ve hi cl e y ou do no t own sh al l be ex ces s ov er an y ot he r co ll ect ib le

un de rin su red m ot or is t co ve rag e.” 30 7 S.W .3d at 13 7. The Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t

th en in te rp ret ed th e po li cy to m ean “ un de rin su red co ve rag e un de r th e po li cy ‘sha ll be

ex ces s ov er an y ot h e r c o l le ct ib le un de rin su red m ot or is t co ve rag e’ whe n, as in th is

cas e, th e in su red is in

jure d whi le rid in g in a no n- own ed ve hi c l e

. ” Id

. W hi le th is

la ng ua ge arg ua bl y su pp or ts Safe co ’s arg um en t th at th e Oth er Ins ur an ce clau se on ly

ap pl ie s to ci rcu m st an ces whe re th e in su red is oc cu pyin g a no n

- o w n e d ve hi cl e, th e

oc cu pa nc y qu es ti on was no t at iss ue in Ri tc hi e. Acco rd in gl y , whe th er th e po li cy in

Ri tc hi e req ui red oc cu pa nc y of a no n- own ed ve hi cl e was no t sp eci fic al ly de ci de d by

th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t. See Bl un ka ll v. Heav y & Sp eci al iz ed Hau le rs
, In c., 39 8

S.W .3d 53 4, 54 4 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 13 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at ex pr es si on s of op in io n by th e

co ur t t ha t ar e n ot ne ces sa ry for de ci di ng th e cas e are “ ob it er di ct a” an d no t b in di ng

pr eced en t). Thu s, it wou ld no t be ap pr op ria te to read in to th e R i tc hi e ho ld in g a
jud ic ia ll y -cre at ed oc cu pa nc y req ui rem en t.

Ri tc hi e rel ie s he av il y on Nis won ge r v. F a r m B u reau Town & Co un try

In su ran ce C o

. of Mi ss ou ri, 99 2 S.W .2d 30 8 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 99 ), in su pp or t of it s

de ci si on

. In Nis wo n g e r
, th e Oth er In su ran ce pr ov is io n pr ov id ed

, “ an y in su ran ce

pr ov id ed un de r th is en do rs em en t fo r a pe rs on in su red whi le oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed

-7

-ve hi cl e is ex ces s of an y ot he r si m il ar in su ran ce.” 99 2 S.W .2d at 31 5. Bec au se of th is

po li cy la ng ua ge
, whi ch ex pl ic it ly req ui res oc cu pa nc y , th e N i swo ng er co ur t he ld

,

“ [w]hil e th e UIM ‘ant i-s ta ck in g’ pr ov is io ns of th e po li cy he re in qu es ti on m ig ht

pe rh ap s ha ve to be de em ed un am bi gu ou s in n earl y an y ot he r fact ua l si tu at io n, th at

do es no t ne ces sa ril y m ean t h e y are un am bi gu ou s in th e pa rti cu la r fact ua l si tu at io n

no w be fo re us
, whe re th e acci de nt oc cu rred whi le [th e in su red ] was oc cu pyin g a no nown ed ve hi cl e.” Id

. Thu s, it is ob vi ou s th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t whe n de ci di ng

Ri tc hi e si m

pl y to ok th e la ng ua ge fro m th e Nis won ge r de ci si on whi ch co nt ai ne d

refe ren ce to oc cu pa nc y on ly be cau se th e po li cy at is su e in Nis won ge r al so co nt ai ne d

an oc cu pa nc y req ui rem en t. Acco rd in gl y, w e reject Safe co ’s arg um en t th at th e

Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t in Ri tc hi e li m it ed it s ho ld in g to si tu at io ns whe re th e in su red

is oc cu pyin g a no n- own ed ve hi cl e at th e ti m e th e in jury is s uf

fere d.

Fi na ll y , Safe co arg ue s th at Ken ne dy, a Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s de ci si on th at

is sq ua rel y on po in t— fact ua ll y , le ga ll y , an d co nt ract ua ll y —wi th th is cas e, co nt ro ls

.
In Ken ne dy, th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s he ld th at st ack in g of Safe co UIM po li ci es

is no t pe rm it te d, reas on in g th at no m at te r wha t th e Oth er In su ran ce cl au se st at ed

, no

reas on ab le la y

pe rs on co ul d be li ev e it ov erri de s th e ot he r m ul ti pl e pr ov is io ns in th e

po li cy pr oh ib it in g st ack in g. Ken ne dy, 41 3 S.W .3d at 17 -1 8. To be c e r t a i n
, t h i s

r eas on in g is ap pe al in g; ho wev er, we are un ab le to fo ll ow it be cau se th e Mi ss ou r i

Co ur t of App eal s fai ls to di st in gu is h th e Safe co po li ci es co ns id ered in Ken ne dy fro m

th e po li cy at is su e in Ri tc hi e, whi ch al so co nt ai ne d ex pr es s cl au se s th at ba rred

st ack in g of UIM co ve rag e. W e no te th e Safe co po li cy co nt ai ns m or e “ no -s ta ck in g”

cl au se s th an were co nt ai ne d i n t he po li cy at i ss ue in Rit ch ie , b ut we fai l to se e ho w

th at fact al on e ne ga te s th e ru le

, em ph as iz ed in Ri tc hi e, th at whe re “ ex ces s co ve rag e

was pr om is ed at on e po in t an d ta ke n away at an ot he r” an am bi gu it y is crea te d an d th e

co ur ts sh ou ld al lo w fo r st ack in g of th e po li ci es

. 30 7 S.W .3d at 13 8 (ci ti ng Seec k, 21 2

S.W .3d at 13 3)

. Des pi te th e “ no -s ta ck in g” pr ov is io ns fo un d in th e Ri tc hi e po li cy
, th e

Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e po li cy co ul d be reas on ab ly in te rp ret ed to al lo w

-8

-st ack in g wh en th e acci de nt fal ls un de r th e Oth er In su ran ce p ro vi si on whi ch fai ls to

in cl ud e th e “ no -s ta ck in g” pro vi si on s fo un d e ls ewh ere i n t he po li cy

.

W he n th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s de ci de d Ken ne dy, it ba se d it s de ci si on on

th e fact th at th e Safe co po li ci es co nt ai ne d se ve ral “ no -s ta ck in g” cl au se s th ro ug ho ut

th e po li cy an d th us co nc lu de d th at no reas on ab le po li cy ho ld e r c o u l d in te rp ret th e

Oth er In su ran ce cl au se as ov erco m in g th e “ no -s ta ck in g” res tri ct io ns

. Thi s reas on in g,

ho wev er, was no t pe rs ua si ve to th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t in Ri tc hi e, an d th eref or e

we can no t ado pt it in th is cas e. See Bl an ke ns hi p v. USA Truc k, In c., 60 1 F.3 d 85 2,

85 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at whe n a fed eral co ur t si ts in di ve rs it y , it m us t ap pl y

th e go ve rn in g pr eced en t fro m th e st at e’s hi gh es t co ur t, an d whe n th ere is no cas e

di rect ly o n po in t, th e fed eral co ur t must pr ed ic t ho w t he st at e su pr em e co ur t wou ld

ru le if f a c e d w i t h th e sa m e qu es ti on ). The Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t de cl in ed to

t ran sf er Ken ne dy. Thu s, we m us t pr ed ic t wha t ou tc om e we be li ev e th e M i s s o u r i

Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld reac h i n t h i s si tu at io n, an d fro m it s ho ld in g in Ri tc hi e, we

be li ev e it wou ld reject th e Mi ss ou ri C ou rt o f App eal s d eci si on in Kenn ed y

.

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e th e di st r i c t c o ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in

fav or of Safe co

. W e rem an d th is m at te r to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to gr an t

Jo r d a n ’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t an d to co nd uc t fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

co ns is te nt wit h t hi s d eci si on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-