Opinion ID: 1402930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Other Insurance Clause Authorizes Stacking

Text: Considered in isolation, the limit of liability provision and clause (1) of the other insurance provision could be interpreted to prohibit stacking to the extent they state that the limit of liability shown in the declarations for each person for Underinsured Motorists coverage is our maximum limit of liability and that any recovery may equal but not exceed the highest applicable limit for any one vehicle. As noted earlier, however, courts should not interpret policy provisions in isolation but rather evaluate policies as a whole. Seeck, 212 S.W.3d at 133. Allied's proposed interpretation of the above two subsections is inconsistent with subsection (2) of the other insurance provision, which states that [a]ny coverage we provide with respect to a vehicle you do not own shall be excess over any other collectible underinsured motorist coverage (emphasis added). Kelsey was injured while riding in a vehicle not owned by her or her parents. Subsection (2) of the other insurance provision, therefore, is applicable. As just quoted, this means the underinsured coverage under the policy shall be excess over any other collectible underinsured motorist coverage when, as in this case, an insured is injured while riding in a non-owned vehicle. When subsection (2) is read together with the provisions in which Allied relies, the three subsections suggest that the policy's anti-stacking provisions, which might normally and otherwise apply, do not apply in the special situation where the insured is injured while occupying a non-owned vehicle. Niswonger, 992 S.W.2d at 315. Rather, an ordinary person of average understanding, McCormack Baron, 989 S.W.2d at 171, reasonably could interpret this other insurance provision to mean that when an injured insured is occupying a non-owned vehicle and there are multiple underinsured motorist coverages, as it is conceded there are here, then each of the underinsured motorist coverages are excess to the other, and, therefore, may be stacked. Seeck is directly on point. In that case, this Court followed a long line of precedent holding that conflicts between underinsured motorist policy limits ... and the provision of excess coverage in an excess or other insurance clause renders an insurance policy ambiguous. 212 S.W.3d at 133. This Court found the interplay between a limit of liability provision and an other insurance provision created ambiguity, as excess coverage was promised at one point and taken away at another. Id. This reasoning is directly applicable here. [3] The Allied other insurance provision reasonably could be interpreted as superseding the limit of liability provision and making coverage available to the insureds through their own additional underinsured motorist coverages with Allied. Niswonger, 992 S.W.2d at 318. [4] Any conflict between these provisions creates an ambiguity that is resolved in favor of the insureds. Chamness v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 226 S.W.3d 199, 207 (Mo.App.2007). [5] Allied attempts to distinguish its other insurance provision from that in Seeck by noting that the provision in Seeck said coverage was excess over any other insurance, whereas here, Allied's policy says coverage is excess over  any other collectible underinsured motorist coverage. While this difference in language might be dispositive in some other fact situation, [6] Allied fails to note that in the present matter the Ritchies, in fact, are claiming the coverage is excess over other collectible underinsured motorist coverage. As such, Seeck's reasoning is fully applicable. [7] This also distinguishes Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo. v. Barker, 150 S.W.3d 103, 108 (Mo.App.2004), the key case on which Allied relies. While the other insurance provision in Barker states that any insurance with respect to a non-owned vehicle will be excess over primary coverage provided by insurance that applies to the occupied motor vehicle, the Allied policy provides excess coverage over  any other collectible underinsured motorist coverage. In this way, the language in the Allied policy is more likely to create the impression that underinsured motorist coverages can be stacked when injury occurs in a non-owned vehicle. In any event, no other court has cited Barker in any of the numerous underinsured motorist decisions since it was handed down. To the extent Barker is inconsistent with Seeck and the cases Seeck cites with approval, it no longer should be followed. [8]