Opinion ID: 1492700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: per person/per accident

Text: The next claim is that of Calvin and Tinne Lair, who seek recovery of the $17,997.88 paid for Stephen's medical expenses. The trial court in construing the per person vis-a-vis per accident coverage limitations in the uninsured motorist section of Stephen's policy found the latter was not available to the plaintiffs and that Stephen Lair's claim exhausted the $25,000 per person limit. The applicable policy section reads: Limits of Liability The limits of liability shown in the declaration apply, subject to the following: 1. The limit for each person is the maximum for bodily injury sustained by any person in any one accident. 2. Subject to limit for each person the limit for each accident is the maximum for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. As previously stated, the coverage limits were $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident and American paid the per person limit to Stephen, the only person injured in the accident. The Lairs contend the language of the Limits of Liability is ambiguous and should be favorably construed for the insured's benefit, citing Cano v. Travelers Insurance Co., 656 S.W.2d 266 (Mo. banc 1983). Reliance upon Cano is misplaced. There, the Court held the language, [t]he limit of liability stated in the declarations is applicable to `each person' is the limit of The Travelers' liability for all damages because of bodily injury sustained by one person as a result of any one accident ... was ambiguous. Id. at 271. The ambiguity resulted because the grammatical arrangement of the sentence allowed the participle sustained to modify either the phrase all damages (thus applying to bodily and non-bodily injuries) or the phrase bodily injuries (in which case non-bodily injuries would be excluded). The case sub judice presents no such problems of syntax. The words, [t]he limit for `each person' is the maximum for bodily injury sustained by a person in any one accident are unambiguous, as the participle sustained can only modify bodily injury, hence the policy's language belies the claim of ambiguity. See Madison Block Pharmacy, Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 620 S.W.2d 343, 346-7 (Mo. banc 1981). The judgment is affirmed. BLACKMAR, C.J., ROBERTSON, HIGGINS, COVINGTON and BILLINGS, JJ., and CONNETT, Senior Judge, concur. HOLSTEIN, J., not sitting.