Opinion ID: 1402930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to Stack Underinsured Motorist Coverage Is Determined by the Language of the Policy

Text: `Stacking' refers to an insured's ability to obtain multiple insurance coverage benefits for an injury either from more than one policy, as where the insured has two or more separate vehicles under separate policies, or from multiple coverages provided for within a single policy, as when an insured has one policy which covers more than one vehicle. Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 992 S.W.2d 308, 313 (Mo.App.1999). Missouri law requires that all automobile insurance policies issued in this state provide uninsured motorist coverage of at least the statutory minimum amount of $25,000. § 379.203, RSMo 2000. Flowing from this statutory requirement, this Court has recognized that where multiple policies or multiple uninsured motorist coverages are in place, insurers are prohibited from including policy language precluding stacking of the coverage provided under multiple policies or coverage provisions. Niswonger, 992 S.W.2d at 313. By contrast, and unlike many other states, Missouri statutes do not also mandate underinsured motorist coverage. See 16 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, § 49.35 (4th ed. 2009) (contrasting the requirements of various states in regard to underinsured motorist coverage). Consequently, the existence of the [underinsured motorist] coverage and its ability to be stacked are determined by the contract entered between the insured and the insurer. Rodriguez v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 808 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. banc 1991). This means that if the policy language is unambiguous in disallowing stacking, the anti-stacking provisions are enforceable. Seeck, 212 S.W.3d at 132. If, however, policy language is ambiguous [as to stacking], it must be construed against the insurer, and stacking will be allowed. Id.; Gulf Ins. Co., 936 S.W.2d at 814. Here, all agree that the Ritchies suffered damages of $1.8 million, that they recovered $60,000 from the tortfeasors, and that each of the Ritchies had underinsured motorist coverage with Allied for the three vehicles in the amounts of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. All agree that Kelsey died as a result of an accident while riding in a non-owned vehicle. All also agree this means that the Ritchies' damages exceed the $60,000 in damages they have been paid under the tortfeasors' insurance policies and that the Ritchies are entitled to recover some additional damages under their underinsured motorist coverage with Allied, which states in part: INSURING AGREEMENT A. We will pay compensatory damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury 1. Sustained by an insured; and 2. Caused by an accident. . . . . We will pay under this coverage only if the limits of liability under any applicable bodily injury liability bonds or policies have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements. . . . .