# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 12 90

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Jo sh ua Mu nr oe ; Ti ffan y

Mu nr oe

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

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Co nt in en ta l West ern Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny, a Fore ig n Li m it ed Liab il it y Co m pa ny

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ 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 24 , 20 13 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 7, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ope rat in g hi s em

pl oyer’s tru ck
, Jo s h u a Mu nr oe was in jure d. Afte r se tt li ng wit h th e to rtf

eas or s, Mu nr oe an d hi s wife su ed Co nt in en ta l W es te rn In su ran ce C o mp a n y fo r un de rin su red m ot or is t (UIM) co ve rag e in hi s em pl oyer’s po li cy

. Co nt in en t a l m ov ed fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t on it s m ax im um li ab il it y

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in pa rt, ho ld in g th at th e Mu nr oe s co ul d no t “ st ack ”th ei r cl ai m s. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n in pa rt, fin di ng a UIM li m it of $2 ,00 0,0 00

rat he r th an $5 00 ,00 0. Bo th pa rti es ap pe al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §
12 92 (b ), th is co ur t af

fir m s i n p art an d re ve rs es in pa rt.

I.

On Nov em

be r 6, 20 06
, Mu nr oe ’s tra ct or -tr ai le r, own ed by hi s e mplo y er,

co ll id ed wit h th r e e o t h er ve hi cl es

. Mu nr oe was se rio us ly i nju red

. He an d hi s wife

se tt le d wi th th e to rtf

eas or s.

The Mu nr oe s th en su ed Co nt in en t a l, se ek in g UIM co ve rag e un de r th e

em pl oyer’s co m

m erci al au to m ob il e in su ran ce po li cy

. The po li cy ’s “ Mo to r Carr ie r Decl arat io ns ” sp eci fy a $5 00 ,00 0 UIM li m it
, an d a $2 ,00 0,0 00 bo di ly-in jury li ab il it y li m it

.

One en do rs em en t to th e po li cy —“M i s s ou ri Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris ts Co ve rag e”— sp eci fie s a $5 00 ,00 0 UIM li m it f o r e a c h “ acci de nt .” The “ Co ve rag e”

se ct io n o f th e en do rs em en t s ay s:

W e wil l pa y al l su m s th e “ in su r e d ” is le ga ll y en ti tl ed to reco ve r as
co m pe ns at or y da m ag es fro m th e own er or dr iv er of an “ un d e r i ns ur ed

m ot or ve hi cl e.” The da m ag es m us t res ul t fro m “ bo di ly in

jury” su st ai ne d by th e “ in su red ” cau se d by an “ acci de nt .” The own er’s o r d riv er’s li ab il it y fo r th es e da m ag es m us t res ul t fro m th e own ers hi p, m ai nt en an ce
or us e o f th e “ un de rin su red m ot or ve hi cl e.”

The “ Lim it of I ns ur an ce” s ect io n o f th e en do rs em en t s ay s:

Reg ard le ss of th e n um

be r of co ve red “ au to s”
, “ in su red s”
, pr em iu m s pa id
, cl ai m s m ad e or ve hi cl es in vo lv ed in th e “ acci d e n t ”
, th e m os t we wil l pa y f o r a l l da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m an y on e “ acci de nt ” is th e li m it

-2

-of Und eri ns ur ed M o t o ris ts Co ve rag e sh own in th e Sch ed ul e or

Decl arat io ns

.

Ano th er en do rs em en t to th e po li cy is a fo rm —“ Sel ect io n/ Reject io n of Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e”:

Und er M i s so ur i In su ran ce Law (3 79 .20 3)
, Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e is op ti on al

. The in su red na m ed in th e po li cy m ay se le ct a li m it of Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e lo wer th an th e b o di ly in jury li ab il it y co ve rag e li m it in th e po li cy , bu t no t le ss th an th e st at e fin an ci al

res po ns ib il i t y l i m it or th e in su red na m ed in th e po li cy m ay ch oo se to reject Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e.

Ch eck it em

sel ect ed :

G Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e ha s be en of fere d to m e, ho wev er, i t i s b ei ng reject ed

.

G Agr ees to pu rch as e Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e at th e st at e fi na nc ia l re sp on si bi li ty lim it s o f 25 /5 0.

G Agr ees to pu rch as e Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e at th e li m it in di cat ed be lo w wh i c h i s le ss th an th e po li cy bo di ly in jury lim it

. (Ent er l im it s o f li ab il it y

sel ect ed )

$ each acci de nt

W he n Mu nr oe ’s em

pl oyer rece iv ed th e po li cy , th e fo rm was bl an k. On th e da te of th e

co ll is io ns , th e fo rm was st il l bl an k. The em pl oyer si gn ed an d ret ur ne d it on e m on th la te r, se le ct in g a $5 00 ,00 0 U I M l i mi t

— th e sa m e as th e de cl arat io ns pa ge an d UIM

co ve rag e en do rs em en t.

-3

-Co nt in en ta l m ov ed fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t, se ek in g a de cl arat io n th at i t s max i mu m UIM li ab il it y is $5 00 ,00 0. The Mu nr oe s so ug ht up to $2 ,00 0,0 00 i n UIM co ve rag e. The y fu rth er arg ue d th at th e po li cy al lo ws st ack in g, pe rm it ti ng th em si x c la im s (t wo ag ai ns t t hr ee d riv ers ) fo r a t ot al of $ 12 ,00 0,0 00

.

The di st r i c t c o u r t fir st ru le d th at th e po li cy do es no t pe rm it st ack in g (th us al lo win g on ly on e UIM cl ai m ). Howev er, fin di ng th e UIM li m it am bi gu ou s, th e co ur t
ap pl ie d th e $2 ,00 0,0 00 bo di ly in jury li m it

. Co nt in en ta l ap pe al s th e de ni al of it s

m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m

m ary jud gm en t. The Mu nr oe s cro ss -ap pe al th e reje c ti on of th ei r st ack in g c la im

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g th e reco rd

m os t fav or ab ly to th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es fo r th at
pa rty. Cha m be rs v. Pennyc oo k
, 64 1 F.3 d 89 8, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Th i s co ur t

rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n of an i n su ran ce po li cy an d in te rp ret at io n of st at e la w. Ar ka ns as Pow er an d Lig ht Co

. v. Ha rt fo rd St ea m Bo il er 1
In sp ect io n an d In s. Co

. , 25 7 F.3 d 85 3, 85 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (in su ran ce po li cy ); Sa lv e Reg in a C ol l. v. Ru ss el

l , 49 9 U.S. 2 25 , 23 9 (1 99 1) (st at e la w).

II.

The Mu nr oe s arg ue th at th e po li cy ’s se le ct io n fo rm crea te s an am bi gu it y in th e U I M li m it
, ne ces si ta ti ng a $2 ,00 0,0 00 li m it

. Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, co ur ts ap p l y t h e
ge ne ral ru le s o f co nt ract co ns tru ct io n whe n in te rp ret in g an in su ran ce po li cy

. Tod d

v. Mi ss ou ri Unit

ed Sch. In s. Co unci l
, 22 3 S.W .3d 15 6, 16 0 (Mo

. ba nc 20 07 ). “ The ke y is whe th er th e co nt ract la ng ua ge is am bi gu ou s or un am

bi gu ou s.” Pete rs v. Em p’ rs Mut

. Ca s. Co
., 85 3 S.W .2d 30 0, 30 2 (Mo

. ba nc 19 93 ). If th e p o l i c y i s

un am bi gu ou s, it wil l be en fo rced as writ te n, ab se nt statu to ry or po li cy co ns id erat io ns

.

The pa rti es ag ree M is so ur i l aw ap pl ie s. 1

-4

-Ro dr ig uez v. Gen. Acc

. In s. Co. of Am

. , 80 8 S .W .2d 37 9, 3 82 (Mo . ban c 1 99 1)

. If

am bi gu it y ex is ts , th e co ur t in te rp ret s th e po li cy in fav or of th e in su red

. Tod d
, 22 3 S.W .3d at 16 0. “ An am bi gu it y ex is ts whe n th ere is du pl i c i t y, i n di st in ct ne ss , or

un cert ai nt y

in th e m ean in g o f th e la ng ua ge in th e p ol ic y . Lang ua ge is am bi gu ou s i f it is reas on ab ly ope n t o d iff eren t co ns tru ct io ns .” Bur ns v. Sm it h , 30 3 S .W .3d 50 5, 50 9 (Mo

. ba nc 20 10 ), qu ot in g Seec k v. Geic o Gen. In s. Co

. , 21 2 S

. W. 3 d 1 2 9, 13 2 ( M o

. ba nc 20 07 ). “ Co ur ts sh ou ld no t in te rp ret po li cy pr ov is io ns in is ol at i o n b u t
rat he r ev al ua te po li ci es a s a w h o l e

. ” Ri tc hi e v. Al li ed Pro p. & Ca s. In s. Co
., 30 7 S.W .3d 13 2, 13 5 (Mo

. ba nc 20 09 ). Co ur ts m us t al so “ en de a v o r t o g i v e each

pr ov is io n a r e a s o na bl e m ean in g an d to av oi d an in te rp ret at io n th at ren de rs so m e
pr ov is io ns us el es s or red un da nt .” Dib be n v. Shel te r In s. Co
., 26 1 S.W .3d 55 3, 55 6 (Mo . App . 20 08 ).

The Mu nr oe s rel y on th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Rice v. Sh el te r Mut ua l In su ra nc e Co

. , 30 1 S.W .3d 43
, 48 (Mo

. ba nc 20 09 ). The re, an ex cl us io na ry cl au se li m it ed co ve rag e to th e st at ut or y m in im um , bu t an ot he r po li cy pr ov is io n
gr an te d m or e co ve rag e. Id

. The co ur t he ld fo r th e in su red
, fin di ng th at th e pr ov is io ns

are “ en ti rel y i n co ns is te nt an d can no t be reco nc il ed

. The po li cy ex pr es sl y li m it s

c o v e r a ge to th e st at ut or y m in im um an d y et pu rp or ts to gr an t fu ll co ve rag e to a l l

pr ov is io ns th at ex ceed th e st at ut o r y mi n i mu ms.” Id

. The co ur t rei te rat ed “ well

se tt le d Mi ss ou ri la w” th at “ in co ns is te nt an d irr eco nc il ab le pr ov is io ns in an in su ran ce
po li cy crea te an am

bi gu it y th at wil l b e res ol ve d i n fa vo r of th e in su red .” Id

. at 49

.

Rice is di st in gu is ha bl e. Its po li cy la ng ua ge ex pr es sl y gr an te d co ve rag e in on e

se ct io n an d li m it ed it in an ot he r. Id

. at 48

. Here, th e po li cy ’s de cl arat io ns pa ge an d
UIM co ve rag e en do rs em en t sp eci fy $5 00 ,00 0 in UIM co ve r ag e. Se e Wa ss on v. Shel te r Mut

. In s. Co

. , 35 8 S.W .3d 11 3, 11 8 (Mo

. App

. 20 11 ) (“ Ord in ari ly, o n e be gi ns wit h th e de cl arat io ns pa ge an d th e co ve rag e de cl arat io ns th ere.” ). The bl an k

se le ct io n form do es no t in di cat e a UIM lim it

. It, t he refo re, d oe s no t with dr aw UIM

co ve rag e or ch an ge it s li m it

. Se e Br ow ni ng v. G u i d e O n e Sp eci al

ty Mut

. In s. Co

. ,

-5

-34 1 S.W .3d 89 7, 90 3 (Mo

. App

. 20 11 ) (“ Here, th e de cl arat io ns pa ge cl earl y st at ed th e

sp eci fic te rm s un de r whi ch UM Co ve rag e wa s p r o vi de d

. . . we fin d no th in g in th e Po li cy th at ‘chan ge d’ th e de cl arat io ns pa ge or refl e c t e d a ‘d iff eren t in te nt io n’

an y whe re el se in Po li cy .”). The fo rm do es no t crea te an irr eco nc il ab le di ffer en ce wit h th e po li cy ’s go ve rn in g do cu m en ts

. Ri ce , 30 1 S.W .3d at 48 -4 9. Se e al so Chr is te ns en

v. Fa rm er

s Ins

. Co ., In c ., 30 7 S.W .3d 65 4, 65 8 (Mo

. App

. 20 10 ), qu ot in g Ja ck so n

v. G en. Acc id

ent In s. Co

. , 72 0 S.W .2d 42 8, 42 9 (Mo

. App

. 19 86 ) (“ W he n th e de cl arat io ns pa ge cl earl y co m m un ic at es th e co ve r a g e pr ov id ed by th e in su ran ce

co nt ract , a nd th e o th er p ol ic y pro vi si on s n ei th er ex pr es sl y ch an ge th e co ve rag e no r ‘reflec t a di ffer en t in te nt io n th an th at cl earl y ex pr es se d on th e de cl arat io ns pa ge ,’ th e de cl arat io ns pa ge co n t r o l s

. ” )

. And it do es no t ren de r th e po li cy op en to two in te rp ret at io ns

. Se e Men do ta In s. Co

. v. Wa re , 34 8 S.W .3d 68
, 71 (Mo

. App

. 20 11 ) (“ An in su red is en ti tl ed to a pr o- co ve rag e in te rp ret at io n of an in su ran ce po li cy if th e
te rm s are su sc e p t i b le of two po ss ib le in te rp ret at io ns an d th ere is ro om fo r

co ns tru ct io n.” ) (in te rn al qu ot a t i o n m ark s om it te d)
, qu ot in g Bur ns , 30 3 S.W .3d at 51 2. Acco rd in gl y , th e se le ct io n fo rm crea te s no in co ns is te nc y , du pl ic it y , un cert ai nt y ,
or in di st in ct ne ss

. Se e Bur ns , 30 3 S .W .3d at 5 09 ; Ri ce , 30 1 S .W .3d at 4 8.

The se le ct io n fo rm do es al lo w a m od ifi cat io n of th e po li cy , ch an gi ng th e UIM li m it fro m $5 00 ,00 0 or reject in g co ve rag e. Howev er, to de te rm in e UIM co ve rag e fo r Mu nr oe , th is co ur t lo ok s to th e po l i c y in effe ct on th e da te of th e co ll is io ns

. Se e
ge ne ra ll y St ewa rt v. Ro ya l , 3 43 S.W .3d 73 6, 7 37 (Mo . App . 20 11 ); Ma ns io n Hi ll s Co nd o. As s’ n v. Am er ic an Fa m il y Mut

. In s. Co

. , 62 S.W .3d 6 33
, 63 5 (Mo

. App

. 20 01 ). A p o l ic y is no t am bi gu ou s be cau se it can be am en de d at a fu tu re da te

. Se e Am er ic an St

an da rd In s. Co

. of W

i s c o n s i n v. St

in so n , 40 4 S.W .3d 30 3, 31 1 (Mo

. App

. 20 12 ) (“ [T]he su bs eq ue nt po li cy is no t an is su e in th is cas e an d th eref or e is no t

r e l e va nt

. . . . W ha t was cl ear an d un am bi gu ou s di d no t be co m e am bi gu ou s du e t o

-6

-ch an ge in th e ve rb ia ge of a su bs eq ue nt in su ran ce po li cy .”). O n t he da y of th e

co ll is io ns , th e p ol ic y

pro vi de d a $5 00 ,00 0 UIM li m it

. 2

B e cau se th e de cl arat io ns pa ge an d UIM co ve rag e en do rs em en t sp eci fy a $5 00 ,00 0 UIM li m it an d th e se le ct io n fo rm do es no t co nt rad ic t th is li m it
, th ere is no

am bi gu it y . The d is tri ct co ur t er red in fin di ng a $2 ,00 0,0 00 UIM l im it

.

III.

On cro ss -ap pe al
, th e Mu nr oe s arg ue th at th e po li cy pe rm it s st ack in g, al lo win g th em each to br in g a cl ai m ag ai ns t th e th ree ot he r dr iv ers , fo r a to t a l of si x UIM

Co nt in en ta l co nc ed es th at if th e em pl oyer ne ve r co m

pl et ed an d ret ur ne d th e 2

se le ct io n fo rm , th e po li cy ’s UIM li m it m ay be am bi g u o u s ( b u t be cau se it was
ev en tu al ly ret ur ne d— co nf irming th e $5 00 ,0 0 0 U I M li m it on th e de cl arat io ns pa ge
an d UIM co ve rag e en dor se m en t— the re is no am

big uit y ). T his co nc es si on is ba se le ss

. Se e Gan de r v. Livo ti
, 25 0 F.3 d 6 0 6
, 6 0 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ The la w is cl ear th at st ip ul at io n s of la w are no t bi nd in g on th e co ur t.”)
, ci ti ng Sa nfo rd ’s Es ta te v. Co m m is si on er of IR S
, 30 8 U.S. 39
, 51 (1 93 9)

. Th e f o r m do es no t sa y it m

us t be
ret ur ne d in or de r to ha ve UIM co ve rag e. Se e Ha gg ar d Ha ul

in g & Ri gg in g Co

. v. St on ewa ll In s. Co
., 85 2 S.W .2d 39 6, 40 1 (Mo

. App

. 19 93 ) (“ The ru le req ui rin g th at

an in su ran ce po li cy be co ns tru ed fav or ab ly to an in su red in cas es of am bi gu it y do es
no t pe rm it a st rai ne d in te rp ret at io n of th e la ng ua ge of th e po li cy in or de r to crea te an
am bi gu it y wher e n on e ex is ts .”).

The di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed th at th e se le ct io n fo rm ’s la n g u a g e “m a y se le ct a li m it of Und eri ns ur ed Mo to ris t Co ve rag e lo wer th an th e b o d i ly in jury li ab il it y
co ve rag e li m it in th e po li cy ” ne ces sa ril y im pl ie d th at “ th e de fau lt co ve rag e li m it fo r
un de rin su red m ot or is ts is th e bo di ly in jury li ab il it y co ve rag e li m it .” To th e co nt rary, th is la ng ua ge te ll s th e in su red th at th e max imu m UIM co ve rag e is $2 ,00 0,0 00

. Als o
co nt rary to th e di st ric t co ur t’s vi ew, th e bl an k se le ct io n fo rm is us efu l, al lo win g ch an ge s to th e UIM li m it fro m th at on th e d ecl arat io ns pa ge an d UIM co ve rag e
en do rs em en t.

-7

-c l ai m s. Co nt in en ta l co nt en ds th e st ack in g is su e is no t pr op erl y be fo re th is co u r t

be cau se th e Mu nr oe s d id no t t im el y rai se it

.

A.

W he n a di st ric t co ur t cert ifi es an in te rlo cu to ry or de r fo r im m ed ia te ap pe al
, th e
ap pe ll an t m

us t fil e a pe ti ti on fo r pe rm is si on to ap pe al th e cert ifi ed or de r wit hi n 10 d a ys

. 2 8 U

. S .C. §1 29 2( b)

. “ A pa rty m ay fil e an an swe r in op po si ti on or a cro ss

pe ti ti on wit hi n 10 da y s aft er th e pe ti ti on is se rv ed .” Fed. R. App. P. 5( b)(2 )

. The de ad li ne is ex te nd ed by th ree da y s if t h e pa rty is se rv ed by m ai l. Fed. R. App. P.
26 (c)

. Se e a ls o Fed. R. App. 26 (a )(1 ) (m et ho d o f co m pu ti ng da y s)

.

On Decem

be r 14
, 20 12
, th e di st ric t co ur t cert ifi ed it s Decem be r 5, 20 11 pa rti al

su m m ary-j ud gm en t or de r an d it s Sep te m be r 2 4
, 20 12 or de r on reco ns id erat io n fo r in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d a “ co nt ro ll in g qu es ti on of l a w

. . . reg ard in g th e am ou nt of co ve rag e un de r th e po li cy .” W it hi n 1 0 d a ys , Co nt in en ta l p et it io ne d fo r pe rm is si on to ap pe al th e qu es ti on “ Doe s th e Co nt in en ta l
W es te rn Po lic y pr ovi de $5 00 ,00 0.0 0 of in su ran ce co ve rag e or $2 Mi ll io n of in su ran ce

co ve rag e? ”

Co nt in en ta l se rv ed th e Mu nr oe s on Decem be r 26
, 20 12 vi a Uni te d St at es m ai l.
On Ja nu ary 8, th is c o u r t req ue st ed th e Mu nr oe s “ m ak e th e ne ces sa ry arra ng em en ts
to ha ve [th ei r] res po ns e fil ed im m ed ia te ly.” The Mu nr oe s req ue st ed an ex te ns io n “ to fil e th ei r Res po ns e an d/ or Cro ss -Pet it io n fo r Perm i s s i o n to App eal ,” as se rti ng th at Co n t i n e n t a l c on se nt ed

. Thi s co ur t gr an te d th e ex te ns io n “ to fil e res po ns e to th e
ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm is si o n t o a pp eal .” On Ja nu ary 11
, th ree da y s aft er th e cro ss

ap pe al de ad l in e, th e Mu nr oe s fil ed a “ Cro ss -Pet it io n fo r Perm is si on to App eal .” Co nt in en ta l di d no t ob

ject ba se d on ti m el in es s. O n Feb ru ary 1 1, th is co ur t gr an te d th e p et it io n fo r pe rm is si on to ap pe al an d t he cro ss -ap pe al

.

-8

-The te n- da y fil in g req ui rem en t fo r in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al s in 28 U.S.C. § 12 92 (b )

is m an da to ry an d juri sd ic ti on al

. Se e Br ow de r v. Dir ect or , Dep ’t of Co rr

s. , 43 4 U.S.
25 7, 26 4 (19 78 ); Ba rt unek v. Bub ak
, 94 1 F.2 d 72 6, 72 8 (8t h Cir. 19 91 ). W he n th e
pe ti ti on to ap pe al is no t ti m el y fil ed
, th is co ur t an d ot he r ci rcu it s reject in te rlo cu to ry
ap pe al s on juri sd ic ti on al gr ou nd s. Se e, e.g

. , Gener al Tele vi si on Ar ts , In c. v. S. Ry ., 72 5 F.2 d 13 27
, 13 30 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 84 ); N u c l e a r Eng ’g Co

. v. Sco tt , 66 0 F.2 d 24 1,
24 6- 47 (7 th Ci r. 19 82 ); Hel le rs te in v. Mr

. S te a k , I n c ., 5 31 F.2 d 47 0, 47 1- 72 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 7 6) ; Ha ns on v. Hunt Oil Co
., 48 8 F.2 d 70
, 72 (8 th Ci r. 19 73 ); Al ab am a Lab or Co unci l, AFL– CI

O Pub. Em

ps . Unio n, Loc al No. 12 79 v. Al ab am a , 45 3 F.2 d
92 2, 92 5 (5 th Ci r. 19 72 ); Mi lb er t v. Bi so n Lab s., In c. , 26 0 F.2 d 43 1, 43 5 (3 d Ci r. 19 58 ).

Si m il arl y , so m e ci rcu it s ho ld th at a Ru le 5( b) (2 ) cro ss -ap pe al is a pr ereq ui si te
to ap pe ll at e rev ie w o f i s s ue s rai se d by ap pe ll ees on in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Se e, e.g

. , Si ke s v. Tele li ne, In c. , 2 81 F.3 d 13 50 , 1 36 7 n.4 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ The pl ai nt iff ’s fai lu re to fil e a cro ss -ap pe al vi ol at es th e req ui rem en t of Fed. R. App

. P. 5( b) (2 ) an d

m ean s th at th e pl ai nt iff

s ha ve no t pr es erv ed th is is su e fo r ap pe al .”), ab ro g at ed on
ot he r gr ou nd

s by Br id ge v. Phoe ni

x Bo nd & In de m . Co
., 55 3 U.S. 63 9 (2 00 8)

. Se e al so Ree se v. B P Ex

pl or at io n (Al as ka ) In c ., 64 3 F.3 d 68 1, 68 9 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ug ge st in g bu t no t de ci di ng th at a “ cro ss -ap pe al is a pr ereq ui si te to ap pe ll at e rev ie w of is su es rai se d by ap pe ll ees on in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al ”). But se e Tri st an i e x re l.
Ka rn es v. Ri chm an , 6 52 F

. 3 d 36 0, 36 5- 66 (3 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (al lo win g a cro ss -ap pe al whe re cro ss -ap pe ll an t fai le d to pe ti ti on fo r pe rm is si on to ap pe al ), ci t i ng Y am ah a Mo to r C or p., U.S.A. v. Ca lh ou n , 51 6 U.S. 1 99 , 20 5 (1 99 6)

.

W he th er fai lu re to ti mely fil e an in te rlo cu to ry cro ss -ap pe al pr ecl ud es ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on is a cl os er qu e st io n. In Y ama ha Mot or Co rp ., U.S.A. v. Ca lh ou n , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d: “ As th e te xt of § 12 92 (b ) in di cat es , ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on
ap pl ie s to th e or de r cert ifi ed to th e co ur t of a p p e a l s

. . . . [The refo re,] th e ap pe ll at e

co ur t m ay ad dr es s an y is su e fai rly in cl ud ed wit hi n th e cert ifi ed or de r.” Y am ah a , 51 6

-9

-U

. S

. a t 2 0 5

. Y ama ha do es no t ad dr es s ho w se ct io n 12 92 (b ) in te ract s wit h Ru le 5( b) ( 2 ) ’s req ui rem en t th at cro ss -ap pe al s be fil ed wit hi n 10 da y s of rece ip t of th e
ap pe ll an t’s pe ti ti on

. Ro th v. Ki ng , 44 9 F.3 d 12 72
, 12 82 (D.C. Ci r. 20 06 ) (d is cu ss in g th e te ns io n be twee n se ct io n 12 92 (b ) an d Ru le 5)

. The Mu nr oe s’ st ack in g cl ai m ari se s fro m t h e sa m e cert ifi ed or de r Co nt in en ta l ap pe al s. Yet, th e cl ai m “ ap pe ars to be a ‘cros s- pe ti ti on ’ wit hi n t he co m pa ss of R ul e 5 , whi ch m

us t b e ti m el y

fil ed .” Id

.

T he Mun ro es ’ fai lu re to ti m el y fil e th ei r cro ss pe ti ti on do es no t pr ecl ud e rev iew of th e st ack in g is su e. The Mu nr oe s cro ss -ap pe al th e sa m e cert ifi ed or de r Co nt in en ta l

ap pe al s. Se e Tri

st an i
, 65 2 F.3 d at 36 6 (fi nd in g t h at a gr an t of ap pe ll an t’s le av e to
ap pe al pu rs ua nt to § 12 92 (b ) gi ve s th e co ur t juri sd ic ti on ov er th e en ti re cert ifi ed or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t, “ in cl ud in g an y po r t i o n s th at were de ci de d in th e ap pe ll an t’s fav or ” ev en th ou gh ap pe ll ees fai le d to pr op erl y c r o ss -ap pe al ). Ru le 5( b) (2 ) is no t juri sd ic ti on al

. Se e Ko nt

ri ck v. Rya n , 54 0 U.S. 44 3, 45 2- 56 (2 00 4) (h ol di ng th at no nst at ut or y ru le s of pr oc ed ur e are no t juri sd ic ti on al be cau se on ly Co ng res s m ay de te rm in e a fed eral co ur t’s su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ). Thi s co ur t gr an t e d th e
pe ti ti on to cro ss -ap pe al
, an d wil l co ns id er it

. But se e Tra nel lo v. Fr ey , 96 2 F.2 d 24 4,
24 8 (2 d Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ The f a i l ur e to fil e th e pe ti ti on fo r pe rm is si on to cro ss -ap pe al wit hi n th e ti m e pr ov id ed is a ju ris di ct io na l de fect
, ba rri ng th is Co ur t fro m he ari ng Tran el lo ’s cro ss -ap pe al .”); Ro dr ig uez v. Ba nco Cent

. , 91 7 F.2 d 66 4, 66 8- 69 (1 st Ci r. 19 90 ). 3
B.

On th e m eri ts of th e st ack in g is su e, th e Mu nr oe s fir st arg ue th at th e po li cy
pr ov id es se pa rat e UIM c ov erag e fo r bo th of th em ag ai ns t ea ch of th e th ree

un de rin su red m ot or is ts , fo r a to ta l of si x U I M cl ai m s. By th e UIM co ve rag e

Tr an el lo an d Rod

ri gu ez ba s e d t h e i r an al y se s in pa rt on Fed eral Ru le of 3 App el la te Pro ced ur e 5. Si nc e th es e c a s e s , t h e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at no nst at ut or y rul es of p ro ced ur e are no t ju ris di ct io na l. Ko nt ri ck , 54 0 U.S. at 45 2- 56

.
-1 0-en do rs em en t’s “ Co ve rag e” se ct io n, Co nt in en ta l w i ll pa y al l su m s “ th e in su red is

le ga ll y en ti tl ed to reco ve r as co m pe ns at or y da m ag es fro m

th e o wne r or dri ve r of an

un de rin su red m ot or

ve hi cl e.” The Mu nr oe s re as on th at th ey bo th are “ th e in su red ”

un de r th is se ct io n, an d th e acci de nt in vo l v e d th ree un de rin su red m ot or ve hi cl es

. The refo re, t he y

are en ti tl ed to si x c la im s.

T his ar gum en t ig no res th e en do rs em en t’s “ Lim it of In su ran ce” se ct io n (an an tist ack in g p ro vi si on ):

Reg ard le ss of th e nu m

be r of c ov ered “ au to s”
, “ in su red s”
, pr em iu m s pa id
, cl ai m s m ad e or ve hi cl es in vo lv ed in t h e “ac ci de nt ”, th e m os t we wil l pa y fo r al l d a mag e s res ul ti ng fro m an y on e “ acci de nt ” is th e li m it of Und eri ns ur ed Mo to r i s ts Co ve rag e sh own in th e Sch ed ul e or Decl arat io ns

.

Thi s pr ov is io n li m it s da mag e s “resu lt in g fro m an y on e acci de nt ” to $5 00 ,00 0 (th e li m it o f UIM co ve rag e in th e po li cy ) reg ard le ss of th e nu m be r of co ve red au to s, in su red s, p rem iu m s p ai d, cl ai m s m ad e, or ve hi cl es in vo lv ed

.

The Mu nr oe s at ta ck th e an ti -s ta ck in g pr ov is io n as am bi gu ou s. Se e Kr om ba ch

v. Ma yfl ow er In s. Co
., 82 7 S.W .2d 20 8, 21 0- 11 (Mo

. ba nc 19 92 ) (“ Am bi gu ou s
pr ov is io ns of a po li cy de si gn ed to cu t do wn, res tri ct , or li mit in su ran ce co ve rag e al r e a d y g r an te d

. . . m

us t be st ric tl y co ns tru ed ag ai ns t th e in su rer.” ). The y co nt en d th e ph ras e “ in vo lv ed in th e acci de nt ” m od ifi es on ly th e wor d “ ve hi cl es ” an d no t th e

an te ced en ts “ au to s,” “ in su red s,” “ pr em iu m s pa id ,” or “ cl ai m s m ad e.” The Mu nr oe s al so m ai nt ai n th e li m it is in ap pl ic ab le be cau se it ap pl ie s to “ ve hi cl es ,” no t

“ un de rin su red m ot or ve hi cl es ,” whi ch it arg ue s i s a s ep arat e an d d is ti nc t cl as s. Se e
ge ne ra ll y V er sa w v. V er sa w , 20 2 S .W .3d 63 8, 6 45 (Mo . App . 20 06 ).

The se arg um en ts are wit ho ut m eri t. The Mu nr oe s pr ov id e n o a u t ho rit y fo r li m it in g th e ph ras e “ in vo lv ed in th e acci d e nt ” to th e wor d “ ve hi cl es .” Mo re

-1 1-im

po rta nt ly, th ey fai l to art ic ul at e th e im po rta nc e of th at ph ras e to th ei r in te rp ret at io n of th e po li cy

. Rem ov in g th e co nt es te d la ng ua ge , th e pr ov is io n read s: “ Reg ard le ss of th e nu m be r of co ve red ‘aut os ,’ ‘ins ur ed s,’ pr em iu m s pa id
, cl ai m s m ad e or ve hi cl es , th e m os t we wil l pa y fo r al l da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m an y on e ‘accid en t’ is [$ 50 0,0 00].”
Eve n wi th ou t t he la ng ua ge , t he pr ov is io n li m it s reco ve ry to $5 00 ,00 0 re ga rd le ss of th e n um be r of ve hi cl es or p eo pl e in vo lv ed in th e acc id en t.

Si m il arl y , th e Mu nr oe s fai l to ex pl ai n ho w “ un de rin su red m ot or ve hi cl es ” are

no t a su bc la ss of “ au to s” or “ ve hi cl es ” co ve red by the an ti -s ta ck in g p ro vi si on

. The

po li cy de fin es “ un de rin su red m ot or ve hi cl es ” as “ a la nd m ot or ve hi cl e or tra il er” wit h in su ffi ci en t co ve rag e at th e ti m e of th e acci de nt

. “ Aut os ” are de fi n e d a s “a l an d

m ot or ve hi cl e, ‘trai le r’ or se m it rai le r de si gn ed fo r tra ve l on pu bl ic ro ad s.” The po li cy do e s no t de fin e th e wor d “ ve hi cl es .” W he n an in su ran ce po li cy us es an un de fin ed

te rm , i t “wi l l be vi ewed in th e m ean in g th at wou ld or di na ril y be un de rs to od by th e la y m an who bo ug ht an d pa id for th e p ol ic y .” Ma nner

v. Schi er m ei er , 39 3 S.W .3d
58
, 62 (Mo

. ba nc 20 13 ), qu ot in g Kr om ba ch
, 82 7 S.W .2d at 21 0. Se e al so Am er ic an Fa m il y Mut

. In s. Co

. v. Peck
, 16 9 S.W .3d 56 3, 56 7 (Mo

. App

. 20 05 ) (“ The fact th at

a te rm rem ai ns un de fin ed in a po li cy do es no t ne ces sa ril y ren de r it am bi gu ou s.”)

. “ To de te rm in e th e or di na ry m ean in g of a te rm , co ur ts co ns ul t st an da rd Eng li sh la ng ua ge di ct io na rie s.” Lupo v. Shel t e r M u t

. I n s. Co

. , 70 S.W .3d 16
, 22 (Mo

. App

. 20 02 ).
W eb st er’s Thi rd New In te rn at io na l Dict io na ry de fin es “ ve h i c l e ” as “ an ag en t of

tra ns m is si on : carr ie r.” Web st er’s Thi rd New In tern at io na l Dict io na ry 25 38 (3 d ed . 19 61 ).

App lying th es e de fin it io ns t o t he po li cy , a la y pe rs on wou ld un de rs ta nd th at

“ un de r i n s u red m ot or ve hi cl es ” are a su bc la ss of “ au to s” an d “ ve hi cl es ” co ve red by th e an ti -s ta ck in g p r ov is io n. Se e Co rr ig an v. Pro gr es si ve In s. Co

. , No. ED 99 38 0, 20 13 W L 4 8 1 51 58
, at *7 (Mo

. App

. Sep t. 10
, 20 13 ) (“ App lying th e de fin it io n of ‘veh ic le ’ to th e te rm s of th e in su ran ce po li cy at ha nd
, it is reas on ab le to as su m e a la y
pe rs on wou ld un de rs ta nd th at a m ot or cy cl e is en co m pa ss ed wit hi n t he de fin it io n of

-1 2-ve hi cl e, su ch th at th e po li cy ’s res tri ct io ns an d l i mi t s o n li ab il it y wit h reg ard s to

ve hi cl es als o a pp ly to m ot or cy cl es .”).

M o s t s ig ni fic an tl y , th e Mu nr oe s ig no re th e un am bi gu ou s la ng ua ge th at “ t h e

m os t [Co nt in en ta l] wil l pa y fo r al l da m ag es res ul t i n g f r o m a ny on e ‘accid en t’” is $5 00 ,00 0. Th e Mu nr oe s in ject am bi gu it y whe re no ne ex is ts

. Ro dr ig uez v. Gen.
Acc id ent In s. Co

. , 80 8 S.W .2d 37 9, 38 1- 83 (Mo

. ba nc 19 91 ) (fi nd in g an an ti -s ta ck in g
pr ov is io n cl ear an d un am bi gu ou s whe re it ap pl i e d “regar dl es s of th e nu m be r of ‘ins ur ed s’; cl ai m s m ad e; ve hi cl es or pr em iu m s sh own in th e Decl arat io ns ; or ve hi cl es in vo lv ed in th e acci de nt ”). The on ly reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n of t h e an ti -s ta ck in g
pr ov is io n is : Fo r each acci de nt , Co nt in en ta l is li ab le fo r up t o $ 5 0 0
, 0 0 0

. Se e Ha ul er s In s. Co

. v. Wya tt , 17 0 S.W .3d 54 1, 54 5 ( M o

. App

. 20 05 ) (“ The po li cy

un am bi gu ou sl y li m it s l ia bi li ty cov erag e to $5 00 ,00 0 pe r acci de nt , r eg ard le ss of th e

nu m be r of pe op le in

jure d in th at acci de nt

. The po li cy la ng ua ge cl earl y pr ov id es , in de sc rib in g th e li m it s of in su ran ce fo r acci de nt s in vo lv in g a co ve red au to , t h a t ‘[r] eg ard le ss of th e nu m

be r of

. . . cl ai m s m ad e or ve hi cl es in vo lv ed

. . . th e m os t we wil l pay fo r th e to ta l of al l da m ag es

. . . res ul ti ng fro m an y on e acci de nt in vo lv in g a

co ve red au to is th e Each Acci de nt Lim it of In su ran ce.’”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

Fi na ll y , th e Mu nr oe s as se rt th at th e co ll is io ns co ns ti tu te d m o r e t ha n on e acci de nt , en ti tl in g th em to m ul ti pl e UIM li m it s. The re are two way s to in te rp ret th e

w o r d “ acci de nt .” The “ cau se ” ap pr oa ch fin ds th at “ an in su red ’s si ng le a c t i s

co ns id ered th e acci de nt fro m whi ch a l l cl ai m s flo w.” Ka ns as Fi re & Ca s. Co

. v. Ko el li ng , 7 29 S.W .2d 25 1, 25 2 (Mo . Ap p. 19 87 ). The “ effe ct ” ap pr oa ch fin ds th at

“ each cl ai m ari si ng ou t of an in su red ’s act is co ns id ered a se pa rat e acci de nt .” Id

. Se e al so Ha ul er s , 17 0 S .W .3d at 5 45

.

The cau se ap pr oa ch is ap pr op ria te he re. Mi ss ou ri co ur ts ap p l y th e cau se
ap pr oa ch to si m il ar po li ci es

. Se e Ha ul er s , 17 0 S.W .3d at 54 5; Ka ns as Fi re , 72 9

-1 3-S.W .2d at 25 2. Se e al so Al ls ta te Pro p. & Ca s. In s. Co

. v. McB ee , No. 08 -0 53 4- CVW

- H F S
, 2 0 09 W L 11 24 97 3, at *5 (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 27
, 20 09 ) (ad op ti ng th e cau se
ap pr oa ch fo r po li ci es th at li m it reco ve ry res ul ti ng fro m on e oc cu rren ce reg ard le ss of th e nu m be r in jure d)

. Lik e Hau le rs , th e po li cy he re de fin es “ acci de nt ” as “ co nt in uo us

or rep eat ed ex po su re to th e sa m e co nd it io ns res ul ti ng in ‘bod il y in jury’ or ‘pro pe rty da m ag e.’” Se e Ha ul

er s , 17 0 S.W .3d at 54 4. Lik e Hau le rs an d Ka ns as Fir e , th e an ti

st ack in g pr ov is io n h e r e a p p li es reg ard le ss of th e nu m be r of ve hi cl es , cl ai m s, or in su red s. Se e id

. at 5 43 ; Ka ns as Fir e , 72 9 S .W .2d at 2 52

.

In li gh t of th e po li cy ’s de fin it io n of “ acci de nt ” an d it s un am bi gu ou s an ti

st ack in g pr ov is io n, it is un reas on ab le to co nc lu de th at Mu nr oe was in vo lv ed in th ree acci de nt s. Se e Ro dr ig uez , 80 8 S.W .2d at 38 3- 8 4 ( w he re po li cy la ng ua ge

un am bi gu ou sl y pr oh ib it s st ack in g, co ur ts wil l no t crea te ex tra co ve rag e). Und er th e

cau se ap pr oa ch in Hau le rs an d Ka ns as Fir e , Mu nr oe ’s in juri es res ul te d fro m

co nt in uo us or rep eat ed ex po su re to th e sa m e co nd it io ns (co ll is io ns ) an d co ns ti tu te a si ng le acci de nt

.

The di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly den ie d t he Mu nr oe s’ st ack in g c la im

.

** ** ** *

The po rti on of th e di st ric t co ur t’s pa rti al su m m ary-j ud gm en t or de r de nyin g th e Mu nr oe s’ st ack in g cl ai m is affi rm ed

. The po rti on s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s pa rti al

su m m a r y- jud gm en t or de r an d or de r on reco ns id erat io n fin di ng a $2 ,00 0,0 00 UIM li m it are rev ers ed

. The cas e is rem an de d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n.

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

-1 4-