Opinion ID: 1934281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plain and Unequivocal Missouri Exclusion Requirement

Text: To determine whether an insurance policy included the specific language necessary to limit its coverage obligations, the Missouri Supreme Court has examined the policy language at issue. See, e.g., Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., Mo.Supr., 827 S.W.2d 208, 211 (1992). In Krombach, the insurance company argued that any amount paid by a tortfeasor or another insurer would reduce the insurance company's limits of liability pursuant to the policy's amount payable clause. In rejecting this argument, the Missouri Supreme Court noted the insurance company's failure to state the restriction on coverage in plain and unequivocal terms: Had [the insurance company] intended to reduce the coverage limits by any amount paid by a tortfeasor or his insurer, [the insurance company] could have so stated in plain and unequivocal terms. For example, see the language of the policy in Rodriguez where the policy plainly stated [t]he limit of liability [previously defined] shall be reduced by all sums paid by or on behalf of the tortfeasor. Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., 827 S.W.2d at 211 (citing Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co., Mo.Supr., 808 S.W.2d 379, 381 (1991) ( en banc )). The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that [h]aving failed to make clear which `amount payable' was intended, the insurer must bear the burden of the resulting confusion. Id.