Court Opinion

ID: 9478725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:56:32.469276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:35.395235
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
This case involves interpretation of an automobile insurance policy under Missouri law and concerns a subject which Missouri state courts have not yet considered. We have often stated that where an experienced district judge decides a question of state law on which state courts have not yet expressed a view, we give substantial deference to that decision. Kansas State Bank of Holton v. Citizens Bank of Windsor, 737 F.2d 1490, 1496 (8th Cir.1984). I would apply the rule here.
The reasoning most convincing to me is effectively expressed in the district court’s opinion. The court stated:
It is clear from the policy language that the underinsured motorist protection is intended to be excess over other insurance paid: “We will pay under this coverage only after the limits of liability under any bodily injury liability bonds or policies have been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements.” In fact, underinsured motorist coverage is necessarily always excess insurance because it is only available when the at-fault party's insurance “provides bodily injury liability limits less than the damages [the insured] is legally entitled to recover.”
# * # * * *
Under the policy’s Underinsured Motorist Coverage Endorsement is a section entitled Limits of Liability. That section provides: “Any amounts payable will be reduced by: 1. A payment made by the owner or operator of the underinsured motor vehicle or organization which may be legally liable.” The maximum amount available from American Family under the underinsured motorist coverage is $100,000. Reducing the amount payable by the payment made ($100,000 minus $100,000) would result in a zero amount payable by American Family.
Although ambiguities in the policy would be construed in the light most favorable to the insured, the Court does *289not find the terms of the policy to be ambiguous and thus finds no liability on the part of the defendant under the clear and intended language of the policy.
I am far more persuaded by this reasoning of the district court than by the reasoning of the court today. The plain import of the language is to create excess coverage and the district court so recognizes. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.