Currently, two of the most litigated issues when dealing with uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage are

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Currently, two of the most litigated issues when dealing with uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage are"

Transcription

1 Current Issues in Unde Uninsured Insurance C BY STEPHEN R. BOUGH AND M. BLAKE HEATH 1 Stephen R. Bough M. Blake Heath Motorists traveling on Missouri highways are supposed to carry at least some liability insurance. All too often, however, a motorist either has no insurance or not enough liability insurance to cover the losses he caused in the accident. 2 When a motorist is uninsured or underinsured, the injured party s only hope for recovery may depend on her own insurance policy. In Missouri, every automobile policy must provide at least the state minimum in liability coverage for uninsured motorist coverage and an insured has the option of contracting for underinsured motorist coverage. 3 As the Insurance Research Council so aptly noted, the recent economic downturn is expected to trigger a sharp rise in the uninsured motorist rate. 4 This rise in the uninsured motorist rate will inevitably drive up the number of uninsured motorist claims. The economic downturn will likely produce a similar spike in underinsured motorist claims since motorists may decide to decrease costs by opting to pay for the state minimum coverage and forgo the premiums of higher coverage. What this means for lawyers representing both injured victims and insurance companies is that their clients will face more litigation involving uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. While the general principles behind uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages seem straightforward enough, any lawyer who has dealt with the issues surrounding uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage can attest that the coverage issues are anything but simple. In fact, Judge Daniel Scott of the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District recently stated, As things now stand, even legally sophisticated persons may find it practically impossible to know their UIM coverage for such scenarios, which cannot be a desirable situation. 5 Currently, two of the most litigated issues when dealing with uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage are 208 / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR

2 rinsured and overage in Missouri the issues of stacking and setoffs. For the most part, the issues have been well-settled in the context of uninsured motorist coverage, but several recent decisions from the Missouri Court of Appeals addressing stacking and setoffs for underinsured motorist coverage show the issues are anything but settled. The purpose of this article is to help practitioners navigate through the issues of uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. Part I of the article will address stacking uninsured motorist coverage. Part II will address stacking and set-offs in underinsured motorist coverage. I. Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage Uninsured motor vehicle coverage (UM) provides a minimum level of recovery for those injured by an owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. 6 Uninsured motor vehicle coverage is required in each automobile liability policy by , RSMo. Missouri law requires a minimum level of coverage of $25,000 bodily injury or death coverage per person in any one accident, $50,000 bodily injury or death coverage for two or more persons in any one accident, and $10,000 property damage coverage for any one accident. 7 Whether issued by the same insurer or different insurers, the public policy expressed in the statute mandates that each automobile liability policy contain at least the statutory minimum amount of uninsured motorist coverage. 8 Uninsured motorist coverage is different from liability insurance. 9 Uninsured motorist coverage is a form of bodily injury insurance. 10 Unlike liability insurance, uninsured motorist coverage does not inure with a particular motor vehicle. 11 Uninsured motorist coverage protects against bodily injury caused by an uninsured motorist s negligence. 12 This coverage cannot be limited by terms of the insurance policy. 13 It does not matter if the coverage for more than one automobile is consolidated into one policy or if the insurer issues each automobile a separate policy. 14 Either way, the insured has purchased uninsured motorist coverage for each automobile and is covered by each. 15 The insurer may not limit by policy provisions the uninsured motorist coverage contained within a consolidated policy or within separate policies. 16 Each must cover the insured for the statutory minimum amount and all must provide coverage. 17 A. Stacking The strong public policy of mandated uninsured coverage affects the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage. Stacking is the ability of the insured to collect insurance coverage from multiple insurance policies. 18 The key decision by the Supreme Court of Missouri on stacking uninsured motorist coverage was in Cameron Mutual Insurance Company v. Madden. 19 The insured in Cameron had two cars, with each car listed separately on the declaration page of the policy. Uninsured motorist coverage was listed for each car, and a $3 premium was charged for uninsured motorist coverage on each car ($6 total). 20 Each provided $10,000 coverage for each person and $20,000 coverage for each accident. 21 The insured s wife was killed while driving one of these insured cars in an accident with an uninsured driver. 22 The insured incurred more damages than the $10,000 coverage limit for one car. 23 The insured claimed he could recover July-August 2012 / 209

3 up to $20,000 in damages, while the insurer claimed his recovery was limited to $10,000 because the two coverages could not be stacked. 24 The insurer argued that the policy language was clear and unambiguous in limiting coverage to whichever insured vehicle was in the accident and, as that coverage met the statutory minimums, it did not violate the statute limiting the recovery. 25 The Supreme Court followed the reasoning in Galloway v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., where the Western District ruled an insured could stack his uninsured coverage. 26 In Galloway, the insured had two separate insurance policies for two different cars. 27 Each policy had uninsured motorist coverage with $10,000 per person limits. 28 The Galloway court concluded that public policy as expressed in required that each policy contain at least the statutory minimum amounts of coverage, which could not be reduced by provisions in the insurance policy. 29 Whether different insurers or the same insurers issued the policies was irrelevant; each must provide minimum coverage and must be stacked. 30 Accepting this premise from Galloway, the Supreme Court found that the form of a policy should not affect this premise. 31 If uninsured coverage issued by one insurer in the form of two separate policies must be stacked, then uninsured coverage issued by one insurer in the form of one combination policy covering more than one vehicle must also be stacked. 32 The Court did not consider whether the language was unambiguous because any language limiting stacking in the insurance policy would violate public policy. 33 Public policy mandated the stacking of the insured s two sets of uninsured motorist coverage within the same insurance policy. 34 B. Uninsured Status Barring legislative amendments to the statute, the requirement in Cameron to stack uninsured motorist coverage is unlikely to change. As UM is statutorily required, insurers must allow insureds to stack each policy up to the statutorily required minimums even when the policies are issued by the same insurance carrier or take the form of a combined policy listing multiple automobiles. 35 Cases on other topics occasionally reference it, but the mandatory stacking of uninsured motorist coverage seems to be largely accepted and not a frequent subject of litigation. 36 II. Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage The purpose of underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) is to provide additional coverage for those injured by a negligent motorist where that motorist s liability coverage does not fully pay for the injured party s actual damage. 37 Underinsurance coverage is floating insurance that follows the insured rather than a particular vehicle. 38 No statutory requirement mandates an insured purchase underinsured motorist coverage. 39 The definition of an underinsured motor vehicle is dictated by the terms of the policy. 40 Previous court decisions determining UIM coverage are not controlling unless the insurance policy language is identical. 41 The policy language will determine whether stacking underinsured coverage is permissible and whether an insurer is entitled to a setoff. 42 Three recent Missouri Court of Appeals cases are instructive. Lynch v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Straw both contain UIM language that the Southern District found unambiguous and, therefore, the insured could not stack the coverage and the insurer was allowed to set off from the limits of the coverage (rather than from the total amount of damages) for previously recovered damages. 43 In contrast, in Long v. Shelter Insurance Companies, the Western District found the UIM language ambiguous and, therefore, the insured could stack the coverage and the insurer could not set off previously recovered damages against coverage limits. 44 Comparing the language from the three insurance policies in these cases provides indicators for what courts may find ambiguous in future cases. A. Stacking Stacking insurance coverage allows the insured to obtain coverage from more than one policy. 45 Multiple policies can exist in the form of separate policies for separate vehicles or from a combined policy with multiple vehicles under one policy. 46 The ability to stack underinsured coverage stems from the contract policy language. 47 As there is no statutory requirement for underinsured coverage, no public policy prohibits the insurer from including provisions preventing stacking within the insurance policy. 48 Therefore, unambiguous antistacking provisions are enforceable. 49 Conversely, ambiguous anti-stacking provisions are construed against the insurer and the insured will be allowed to stack the policies Lynch v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company Lynch v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company provides an example of an anti-stacking underinsurance clause that the Southern District found to be unambiguous. 51 In Lynch, the insured sued Shelter seeking UIM benefits under four policies she had purchased from Shelter. 52 Lynch sought to stack her four underinsurance policies. 53 On appeal, Lynch argued the language of her UIM endorsement was ambiguous when reading the 210 / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR

4 LIMIT OF OUR LIABILITY provision together with the OTHER INSURANCE provision.54 Lynch maintained that the LIMIT OF OUR LIABILITY section was ambiguous because the first sentence of the OTHER INSURANCE provision of her policies limited stacking only when the insured was occupying the described auto. 55 The LIMIT OF OUR LIABILITY provision did not specify that Lynch had to be occupying the described auto. 56 The relevant policy language read: LIMIT OF OUR LIABILITY The limit of liability for this Coverage will be the limit of liability stated for this particular endorsement number in the Declarations, subject to the following limitations:... (5) Regardless of the number of: (a) vehicles involved in the accident, (b) persons insured, (c) claims made, or (d) premiums paid, the limits for this Coverage may not be added to, combined with, or stacked onto the limits of other underinsured motorists coverage to determine the total limit of underinsured motorists coverage available to any insured for any one accident. OTHER INSURANCE If an insured s claim under this Coverage arises out of bodily injury sustained while occupying the described auto, no other policy of underinsured motorist insurance, issued by us will apply to such a claim. However, the insurance provided by this Coverage will apply as excess insurance over any other company s underinsured motorists insurance available to the insured as a result of the same accident. The insurance under this policy will then apply only if the total of the limits of all such other insurance is less than the limit of liability of this Coverage. In that instance, we will be liable, under this Coverage, for only that amount by which its limit of liability exceeds the total limits of all such other insurance.57 Lynch believed this inconsistency created an ambiguity in her policies permitting stacking.58 The Southern District disagreed with Lynch s position and found that the anti-stacking language contained in subsection (5) under the LIMITS OF OUR LIABILITY provision was unambiguous.59 The Southern District went on to explain that the OTHER INSURANCE provision provided excess UIM coverage in a situation where the insured was occupying the described auto and there is UIM coverage by any other company. 60 As there was no ambiguity, the court did not allow Lynch to stack the UIM coverage Long v. Shelter Insurance Companies In Long v. Shelter Insurance Companies, the Western District Court of Appeals found the policy language was ambiguous and allowed the plaintiff to stack the UIM policies.62 In Long, the insured sued Shelter Insurance Companies for UIM coverage for the wrongful death of her July-August 2012 / 211

5 husband. 63 The insured sustained at least $450,000 in damages and had previously received $50,000 from the tortfeasor s insurer. 64 The Longs had $100,000 per person UIM coverage with Shelter for the vehicle involved in the accident. 65 The Longs had six other Shelter polices, each with $50,000 per person UIM coverage. 66 Shelter claimed its obligation was satisfied with a payment of $50,000 because only the driven vehicle policy was applicable and that the $100,000 coverage limit was subject to a setoff of $50,000 for the money previously paid on behalf of the tortfeasor. 67 Long claimed that, as the policy was ambiguous, she could stack all seven policies and Shelter could not set off the previous proceeds. 68 The Western District decision on stacking was based on the ambiguity created by the Shelter policy in promising coverage in one provision and taking it away in another. 69 Long argued the OTHER INSURANCE Excess Clause promise[d] the UIM coverage was excess coverage over all other UIM benefits, including other UIM benefits sold by Shelter, but then the anti-stacking language in the OTHER INSURANCE IN THE COMPANY paragraph took the coverage away; and this conflict [created] an ambiguity that entitl[ed] Long to stack the UIM coverage. 70 Shelter claimed the pro rata clause in the Other Insurance section fixed any ambiguity the excess clause created. 71 The Western District found this argument contrary to rules regarding ambiguity. 72 Specifically, the court noted that it must look at the policy provisions as a whole rather than in isolation. 73 Furthermore, any provisions that, read in isolation, prohibit stacking, while others allow stacking, create an ambiguity that is resolved in favor of the insured. 74 Shelter also argued the policy in Long was unambiguous, just as the Shelter policy was in Lynch. 75 Again, the Western District disagreed and found the Long policy distinguishable from the Lynch policy. 76 The policies had substantially similar insuring agreement language. 77 Nonetheless, the UIM Limit of Liability provision in Lynch specifically stated the coverage could not be stacked while the Long policy had no such provision. 78 (See Chart 1 on page 216). Additionally, the Other Insurance clauses [in the two polices were] substantially different. 81 In the Lynch policy, the Other Insurance expressly prohibited stacking and specified that the UIM coverage was excess over any other company s [UIM] coverage, but this specificity was lacking in the Longs policy. 82 (See Chart 2 on page 216). An ambiguity was created by the appearance of coverage in one clause with another clause indicating coverage was not provided. 85 Therefore, the court ruled against the insurer and allowed Long to stack the UIM policies Underinsured Stacking Status With no statutory public policy expressed, the insurer can limit the insured from stacking underinsured coverage. To do so, in order to be unambiguous, the insurer must clearly state the coverage cannot be cumulative and should specifically use the word stack in the prohibition. Any ambiguity will allow the insured to add the multiple underinsured policies up to the amount of uncompensated damages. B. Setoff A setoff is a reduction in coverage based on previous recovery. 87 Within underinsured motorist coverage, setoff clauses that deduct from coverage limits rather than from total damages are permissible when plain and unambiguous language is used. 88 In 2009, the Supreme Court of Missouri looked at two separate setoff provisions and found that both provisions were ambiguous. 89 In Ritchie, the Supreme Court looked at whether Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company was entitled to a setoff against its total liability under UIM coverage based on the amount paid to its insured by the tortfeasor s liability insurer. 90 The relevant portions of the Allied policy read: Limit of Liability A. The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for each person for Underinsured Motorists coverage is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for cause, loss of services, or death arising out of bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one accident.... B. The limit of liability shall be reduced by all sums:... [p]aid because of bodily injury or by or on behalf of persons organizations who may be legally responsible. 91 Allied contended that the language in subsection B entitled it to a $60,000 setoff since that was the amount paid by the tortfeasor. 92 The Supreme Court disagreed. 93 Citing its earlier decision in Jones, the Supreme Court ruled against Allied because its policy promised coverage at one point and then tried to take it away in another. 94 Using the same analysis it used in Jones, the Supreme Court in Ritchie explained: Both the declarations page for the policy and the limit of liability provision state 212 / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR

6 that coverage is provided up to $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident, for each of the three vehicles the Ritchies owned and, in multiple places, states that this is the most we will pay and that this limit of liability is the maximum it will pay. Yet, as Allied s corporate representative conceded below, Allied in fact never will pay out its full amount under its interpretation of limit of liability subsection B. It always will be reduced by the amounts already paid, even where, as here, the plaintiffs still had $1.74 million in damages unpaid. 95 The Ritchie Court, still following Jones, reasoned that the setoff language would be applicable in situations where the insured had not suffered damages to the full extent of coverage. 96 For instance, if the insured suffers $140,000 in damages and recovers $60,000 from the tortfeasor, then the insurer would only be liable for $80, In cases where the insured s damages far exceed the total amount of coverage provided by the insurer, then the setoff provision does not apply unless it plainly states that the amount payable in UIM coverage is the difference between the policy limits and the amount recovered from the tortfeasor Lynch v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company Looking at setoffs in Lynch, the Southern District found the setoff provisions were plain and unambiguous and consequently allowed the insurer to set off from the coverage limits. 99 Lynch had a $50,000 coverage limit in her Shelter UIM coverage and she had previously received $100,000 payment from the tortfeasor s insurer. 100 She suffered more than $300,000 in damages from the accident. 101 With a setoff, she would not be entitled to any payment from Shelter. 102 Lynch argued the definition of uncompensated damages dictated that she would be compensated for damages exceeding the total amount paid by the tortfeasor. 103 The term was defined as: Uncompensated damages means the portion of the damages which exceeds the total amount paid or payable to an insured by, or on behalf of all persons legally obligated to pay those damages. 104 The Southern District found this reasoning faulty, as the definition contained no promise of compensating her for these damages. 105 The court found a promise of compensation in: INSURING AGREEMENT FOR COVERAGE E-1 If an insured sustains bodily injury as a result of an accident involving the use of a motor vehicle, and is entitled to damages from any person as a result of that bodily injury, we will pay the uncompensated damages subject to the limit of our liability stated in this endorsement. 106 [T]he subject to clause immediately following the phrase uncompensated damages indicated the coverage was not absolute. 107 The LIMIT OF OUR LIABILITY section specified, The limit of liability stated in the Declarations will be reduced by all amounts paid or payable to the insured making the claim by, or on behalf of, all persons legally obligated to pay any portion of the damages to that insured. 108 With the clear subject to clause and the subsequently expressed limitations, the court found an ordinary person of average understanding would understand these provisions reduced coverage amounts based on recovery from other liable parties. 109 As Shelter never state[d] or even implie[d] that [it] promise[d] to pay the full amount of its coverage limit, the policy was clear. 110 With no ambiguity or misleading text, the Southern District found the setoff provision was properly applied by Shelter. 111 Lynch was not entitled to any payment under her UIM coverage Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Straw In Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Straw, the Southern District found the limits of insured s liability clause language to be nearly identical to that in Lynch and, therefore, unambiguous and enforceable. 113 In Straw, Loyd Straw was injured in an automobile collision caused by Paula Heiskell. 114 Straw received $100,000 from Heiskell s liability insurer, Farmers Insurance Group. 115 Straw also had an underinsured motorist policy with a $100,000 limit with Shelter Mutual Insurance Company. 116 Shelter filed a declaratory judgment motion to determine whether their insurance policy provided UIM coverage for Straw for this collision. 117 Shelter argued the policy contained a setoff provision reducing the coverage limit by the amount of other damages paid to the insured. 118 With a $100,000 coverage limit and $100,000 in damages already paid to Straw by Farmers Insurance, Shelter would not owe Straw anything. 119 The parties agreed to a joint stipulation of facts, including a value of damages greater than or equal to $200,000 and stipulated that the court could find either Straw had no coverage under the UIM policy with Shelter or that the Shelter policy provided $100,000 in coverage to July-August 2012 / 213

7 Straw. 120 The trial court could reach no other result. 121 The trial court ruled for Straw and found Shelter owed him $100,000 because of a layperson s reasonable interpretation that an offset would come from total damages rather than from the policy limits. 122 Shelter appealed and the Southern District found for Shelter, largely due to the precedent it had set in Lynch. 123 The court compared the two policies and found only insignificant variations in language. 124 While the court was inclined to agree with Straw that an average person would likely believe he or she had $100,000 in UIM coverage, the policy language in this case was nearly identical to that in Lynch. 125 Therefore, the precedential reasoning of Lynch applied with the subject to clause in the limits of liability provision clearly indicating limits on recovery and the provision further specifying the policy limits would be reduced by other amounts the insured received for damages. 126 Noting the permissibility of setoff provisions that deduct from coverage limits as long as appropriate language is used, the court found the Shelter policy limited UIM damages to $100,000 minus the $100,000 previously recovered from Farmers; consequently, Shelter did not owe Straw for his uncompensated damages Long v. Shelter Insurance Companies In the Long case, from the Western District, the court reached the opposite decision from the Southern District in Lynch and Straw and found the insurer could not set off UIM coverage based on payments by the tortfeasor. 128 The insurer, Shelter, argued that the policy allowed for a $50,000 setoff under each policy for the $50,000 in damages already paid on behalf of Dray. 129 As six of the seven policies only had $50, / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR limits, the setoff would eliminate any recovery under those six policies. 130 The Long Court found, as with the stacking language, that the Shelter policy s UIM language on setoffs was ambiguous. 131 The court reached this decision by going through the policy to follow the applicable definitions given in the policy, as an insured would have to do. 132 The UIM endorsement contained three promises to pay, with subsequent language attempting to take away the promised coverage. 133 First, the insuring agreement stated, we will pay the uncompensated damages, subject to the limit of our liability stated in this coverage. 134 As a bold type phrase, Uncompensated damages was defined by the policy as: Uncompensated damages means the portion of the damages that exceeds the total amount paid or payable to an insured by, or on behalf of, all persons legally obligated to pay those damages. 135 The court found the ordinary insured would understand this to mean that UIM coverage was excess over what the insured received from others. 136 Second, the insured would also understand the right to uncompensated damages [was] subject to the limit of Shelter s liability stated in [this] coverage. 137 This was different than in Lynch, where the agreement stated Shelter would pay subject to the limit of [Shelter s] liability stated in this endorsement. 138 With no numbers provided in the Limits of Liability section of the Longs UIM endorsement, the Limits of Liability language tells the insured to look to the Declarations. 139 Looking at the Declarations page would tell the insured the UIM coverage is $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident. 140 (See Chart 3 on page 216). Third, the UIM endorsement language stated, The limits of liability for this coverage are stated in the Declarations The use of the same language in the insuring agreement and the limits of liability section would lead the insured to believe the amounts stated in the Declarations were available to the insured for UIM coverage. 144 Following these steps directed the ordinary insured to believe he had a $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident UIM coverage to provide recovery for any excess damage over and above those paid by others and would leave the ordinary insured with no reason to look further in determining UIM coverage. 145 The definition of underinsured motor vehicle reinforced this conclusion. 146 The policy attempted to take away these promises in the UIM endorsement Limits of Liability sentence with some limiting language. 147 The sentence contained the phrase, and are subject to the following limitations [T]his create[d] an ambiguity in that where one provision of a policy appears to grant coverage and another to take it away, an ambiguity exists that will be resolved in favor of coverage. 149 The court, rather than simply resolving the ambiguity in favor of coverage, construed the limiting language in the UIM endorsement as intending to prevent a double recovery by allowing a setoff from the total damages. 150 As a result, with $450,000 of total damages and only $50,000 in damages previously paid, Shelter owed Long $350,000: the $400,000 limit of its stacked UIM coverage, without any setoff, but with a credit for the $50,000 Shelter had already paid Underinsured Setoff Status As with underinsured stacking, the issue of setoffs is not simple. The setoff language from the most recent Supreme Court case and the three appellate cases is similar, yet the outcomes were different. (See Chart 4 on page 216).

8 Without clear and unambiguous language stating a previous recovery will be set off from policy limits, the insurer may only set off from the total damages. Ambiguity is apt to be found in the conflicting provisions in the insuring agreement, UIM coverage, and other insurance language. III. Conclusion The rule requiring the stacking of uninsured motor vehicle coverage is reasonably firm, barring any statutory changes. Without any statutory requirement, however, underinsured coverage is subject to differing results on stacking and setoffs depending on the language of the policy and the ability to convince the court of its similarity to the policy language in prior decisions or the ability to distinguish it. The outcome to these questions will always depend on the language of the insurance contract. Endnotes 1 Stephen R. Bough is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, where he served as the editor-in-chief of the UMKC Law Review. M. Blake Heath is also a graduate of UMKC Law School and served on the UMKC Law Review. Their practice is limited to representing plaintiffs in complex personal injury cases and insurance coverage disputes. The authors wish to thank Jane Francis for her invaluable work as a law clerk on this article. 2 The Insurance Research Council estimates that in one in seven drivers was uninsured nationwide. Press Release, Insurance Research Council, Recession Marked by Bump in Uninsured Motorists (April 21, 2011); available at IRCUM2011_ pdf (last visited June 6, 2012). 3 Section , RSMo (2000). 4 Press Release, Insurance Research Council, Economic Downturn May Push Percentage of Uninsured Motorists to All-Time High (Jan. 21, 2009), available at IRC_UM_ pdf (last visited June 6, 2012). 5 Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Straw, 334 S.W.3d 592, 599 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (Scott, J., dissenting) (addressing when stacking or combining multiple underinsured motorist policies is applicable and when the insurer is entitled to a setoff for monies already paid by tortfeasors). 6 Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., 992 S.W.2d 308, 313 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). 7 Section , RSMo (2000). 8 Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Mo. banc 1976). 9 Id. at Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at Long v. Shelter Ins. Cos., 351 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). 19 Cameron Mut. Ins.Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. banc 1976). 20 Id.at Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. at Id. at 541 (citing Galloway v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 523 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Mo. App. W.D. 1975)). 27 Cameron, 533 S.W.2d at Id. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at Blumer v. Auto. Club Inter-Ins. Exch., 340 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (allowing the insured to stack the $25,000 statutory minimum from two uninsured policies for a $50,000 recovery, but not requiring stacking of the full coverage limit contained in each policy). 36 See First Nat. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Clark, 899 S.W.2d 520, (Mo. banc 1995) (discussing liability coverage); Shepherd v. Am. States Ins. Co., 671 S.W.2d 777, 778 (Mo. banc 1984) (disallowing an exclusion for named insured in uninsured coverage and reaffirming Cameron); Long v. Shelter Ins. Cos., 351 S.W.3d 692, 697 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (discussing underinsured coverage); Harris v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 141 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (discussing underinsured coverage); Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., 992 S.W.2d 308, 313 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (discussing underinsured coverage); Nolan v. Am. States Preferred Ins. Co., 851 S.W.2d 720, 723 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) (discussing underinsured coverage). 37 Long v. Shelter Ins. Cos., 351 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). 38 Id. 39 Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132, 135 (Mo. banc. 2009). 40 Harris v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 141 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). 41 Long, 351 S.W.3d at Id. 43 Straw, 334 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011); Lynch, 325 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). 44 Long, 351 S.W.3d at 701, Ritchie, 307 S.W.3d at Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. (holding an ambiguity existed that allowed the insured to stack where the insurance policy contained conflicting policy provisions); Chamness v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 226 S.W.3d 199, 207 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ragsdale, 213 S.W.3d 51, 57 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006); Niswonger v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., 992 S.W.2d 308, 314 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999); Hopkins v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995); Nolan v. Am. States Preferred Ins., 851 S.W.2d 720, (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) S.W.3d 531 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). 52 Id. at Id. 54 Id. at Id. 56 Id. 57 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at Id S.W.3d 692, 701, (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). 63 Id. at Id. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 Id. 68 Id. 69 Id. at Id. at Id. 72 Id. 73 Id. at 700 (citing Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129, 133 (Mo. banc 2007)). 74 Id. at 699 (citing Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132, 144 (Mo. banc 2009)). 75 Id. at Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 Id. at 702. July-August 2012 / 215

9 80 Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at Long, 351 S.W.3d at Id. at Id. at Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at Long, 351 S.W.3d at Id. 87 Id. at Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Straw, 334 S.W.3d 592, 598 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (citing Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132, 141 n.10 (Mo. banc 2009)). 89 See Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009); Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009). 90 Ritchie, 307 S.W.3d at Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at 140 ( But, Jones noted, if a contract promises something at one point and takes it away at another, there is an ambiguity... [and if] policy language is ambiguous, it must be construed against the insurer. ). 95 Ritchie, 307 S.W.3d at Id. at Id. 98 Id. 99 Lynch v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 325 S.W.3d 531, 539 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). 100 Id. 101 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at 533 (quoting Lynch s Shelter policy). 105 Id. at Id. at 533 (quoting Lynch s Shelter policy). 107 Id. at Id. 109 Id. 110 Id. at Id. at Id S.W.3d 592, 596 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011). 114 Id. at Id. 116 Id. 117 Id. 118 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 122 Id. 123 Id. at Id. 125 Id. 126 Id. at Id. at Long v. Shelter Ins. Co., 351 S.W.3d 692, 705 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). 129 Id. at See id. at Id. at See id. at Id. 134 Id. at 702 (quoting the Longs Shelter policy) (bold emphasis in the original). 135 Id. (quoting the Longs Shelter policy) (bold emphasis in the original). 136 Id. 137 Id.at Id. at 705 n Id. at Id. at Id. at Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at 533 (emphasis added). 143 Long, 351 S.W.3d at Id. 145 Id. at Id. 147 Id. at Id. 149 Id. (quoting Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687, 689 (Mo. banc 2009). 150 Id. (applying Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. banc 2009) and Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009)). 151 Id. at Id. at Straw, 334 S.W.3d at Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at Ritchie, 307 S.W.3d at Chart 1 Chart 3 Chart 4 Chart / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR

STACKING UP: UNDERSTANDING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES The Missouri Bar Solo and Small Firm Conference June 14, 2013

STACKING UP: UNDERSTANDING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES The Missouri Bar Solo and Small Firm Conference June 14, 2013 STACKING UP: UNDERSTANDING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES The Missouri Bar Solo and Small Firm Conference June 14, 2013 Sidney Eckman Wheelan Tatlow, Gump, Faiella, and Wheelan, LLC 1 48--1 WHAT IS STACKING?

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc MORRIS JONES and ) PAMELA BROWN, ) ) Appellants/Cross-Respondents, ) ) vs. ) No. SC89844 ) MID-CENTURY INSURANCE CO., ) ) Respondent/Cross-Appellant. ) Appeal from the

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION III PATRICK CORRIGAN, and ) No. ED99380 SEAN CORRIGAN, ) ) Appellants, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable

More information

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE INTRODUCTION Rebecca Floyd-Tunnell and Doris Floyd ( Appellants ) filed suit against Shelter Mutual Insurance

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TERRY E. BLUM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:03CV401 CDP ) ALLSTATE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

uninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy,

uninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy, PRESENT: All the Justices LENNA JO DYER OPINION BY v. Record No. 031532 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE APRIL 23, 2004 DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill,

More information

INSURANCE AND MISSOURI LAW

INSURANCE AND MISSOURI LAW INSURANCE AND MISSOURI LAW After suffering a significant injury, most people understandably concentrate on the relatively straightforward elements of damages and liability. In doing so, however, injured

More information

UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY

UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY 59202 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee March 2004 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY This memorandum reviews the law on uninsured

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,

More information

Supreme Court of Missouri en banc

Supreme Court of Missouri en banc Supreme Court of Missouri en banc MARK KARSCIG, Appellant, v. No. SC90080 JENNIFER M. MCCONVILLE, Appellant, and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PETTIS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. : Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #82] After

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192 Appellate Court Caption ACUITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD DECKER, Defendant- Appellee (Groot Industries, Inc., Defendant).

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY. Honorable William E. Hickle REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TEXAS COUNTY. Honorable William E. Hickle REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART SHELTER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. No. SD33552 JEANIE VASSEUR, Filed: May 19, 2015 MATTHEW VASSEUR, by and thru his Guardian ad Litem, ADAM VASSEUR, CHARLOTTE VASSEUR, JACKIE STRYDOM,

More information

CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE

CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.

More information

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. Luther ASHLEY, et al., Defendants, Luther Ashley, et al., Defendants-Appellees

More information

Recent Case Update. Insurance Stacking UIM Westra v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 13 AP 48, June 18, 2013)

Recent Case Update. Insurance Stacking UIM Westra v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 13 AP 48, June 18, 2013) Recent Case Update VOL. XXII, NO. 2 Summer 2013 Insurance Summary Judgment Stacking UIM Saladin v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 12 AP 1649, June 4, 2013) On August 26, 2010,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JENNIFER HELGESON and ANDREW HELGESON, Appellants, No. 41371-0-II v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN a foreign corporation,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-0446 American Family Mutual Insurance Company,

More information

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY Ed. Note: Opinion Rendered April 11, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: OCTOBER 12, 2012; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-001454-MR TAMRA HOSKINS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JEFFREY T.

More information

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d

More information

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF JAMES H. WHITE, JR. STAATS, WHITE & CLARKE. Florida Bar No.: 309303. 229 McKenzie Avenue. Panama City, Florida 32401

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER BRIEF JAMES H. WHITE, JR. STAATS, WHITE & CLARKE. Florida Bar No.: 309303. 229 McKenzie Avenue. Panama City, Florida 32401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FILED THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioners, CASE NO.: 85,337 BRETT ALLAN WARREN, Personal DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Representative

More information

2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2008AP1036 Complete Title of Case: JOHN A. MITTNACHT AND THERESA MITTNACHT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND CASUALTY

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRYAN F. LaCHAPELL, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF KARIN MARIE LaCHAPELL, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326003 Marquette

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 3009. September Term, 2010 ON REMAND. DEBORAH HIOB, et al.

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 3009. September Term, 2010 ON REMAND. DEBORAH HIOB, et al. UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 3009 September Term, 2010 ON REMAND DEBORAH HIOB, et al. v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Krauser, C.J., Kehoe, Berger, JJ. Opinion

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Noble v. Clawson, No. 418-10-10 Bncv (Wesley, J., July 1, 2011) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the

More information

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK John C. Morrison, Jr., Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether an exclusion in an

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK John C. Morrison, Jr., Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether an exclusion in an PRESENT: All the Justices VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Record No. 081900 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 4, 2009 VIRGINIA C. WILLIAMS, AN INFANT WHO SUES BY HER FATHER

More information

LET S LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTALS OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE BASIC LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE

LET S LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTALS OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE BASIC LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE HOW TO TREAT IDENTICAL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (REPUGNANT) EXCESS INSURANCE CLAUSES IN UNDERINSURED MOTORIST INSURANCE POLICIES WHEN THE INSURED HAS COVERAGE UNDER MULTIPLE UIM POLICIES Robert H. Hobgood, Sr.

More information

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579

More information

RECENT CASES INSURANCE LAW-UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE VALIDITY OF OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS

RECENT CASES INSURANCE LAW-UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE VALIDITY OF OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS INSURANCE LAW-UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE VALIDITY OF OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., 25 Ohio St. 2d 33, 266 N.E. 2d 566 (1971). T HIS CASE CAME to the Ohio

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Certiorari Denied, June 25, 2014, No. 34,732 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-077 Filing Date: April 30, 2014 Docket No. 32,779 SHERYL WILKESON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

[The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code

[The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code No. 122, September Term, 1999 Barry W. Lewis v. Allstate Insurance Company [The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code (1997, 2001 Supp.), 19-501 et seq. of the

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: KENNETH P. REESE JOHN C. TRIMBLE Lewis Wagner, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: MICHAEL E. SIMMONS Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons, LLP Indianapolis,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0073 444444444444 PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. REGAN KELLEY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No WDA 2012

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No WDA 2012 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KENNETH ASHLEY Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CINDY ASHLEY AND/OR NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Appellee No. 1486 WDA

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005. No. 04-5393

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005. No. 04-5393 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005 No. 04-5393 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

Indiana Supreme Court

Indiana Supreme Court ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS George M. Plews Sean M. Hirschten Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF INDIANA, INC. John C. Trimble Richard

More information

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 By: Mark Kane and HayDen Kane By reviewing this document the reader acknowledges that he or she has reviewed, understands

More information

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2000 Term No. 26558 ANTHONY IAFOLLA, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. THOMAS RAY TRENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN KEITH ROBINETTE,

More information

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW MODERNIZING UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE IN MISSOURI: REMOVING THE INSURANCE PARADOX BETWEEN UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED COVERAGE VIA LEGISLATIVE ACTION INTRODUCTION After leaving work late, Peter Gibbons,

More information

MAPPING THE UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED WILDERNESS: Liability Coverage for Uninsured and Underinsured Motorists. Neil Schonert

MAPPING THE UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED WILDERNESS: Liability Coverage for Uninsured and Underinsured Motorists. Neil Schonert MAPPING THE UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED WILDERNESS: Liability Coverage for Uninsured and Underinsured Motorists I. Introduction Neil Schonert II. III. IV. Determining Initial UM/UIM Limits Calculating UIM

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT.

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT. 2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,

More information

(Filed 19 December 2000) 1. Insurance--automobile--parent s claim for minor s medical expenses--derivative of child s claim

(Filed 19 December 2000) 1. Insurance--automobile--parent s claim for minor s medical expenses--derivative of child s claim ROBERTA HOLT, Guardian Ad Litem for MARY ELIZABETH HOLT, a minor; and ROBERTA HOLT, Plaintiffs, v. ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant No. COA99-1481 (Filed 19 December 2000) 1. Insurance--automobile--parent

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON COUNTY ) ) BETTY CHRISTY, ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON COUNTY ) ) BETTY CHRISTY, ) ) ) ) 1 1 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON COUNTY BETTY CHRISTY, Plaintiff, vs. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. Case No: 0-0-L ORDER ON PLAINTIFF

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida LABARGA, J. No. SC09-240 JOHN RANDO, et al., Appellants, vs. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. [April 8, 2010] This case is before the Court for review of a question

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U. No. 1-15-0714 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U. No. 1-15-0714 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U SIXTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-15-0714 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STANLEY SMITH, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. : NO. 07-0834 L. Felipe Restrepo United States Magistrate

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS EDWIN HOLLENBECK and BRENDA HOLLENBECK, UNPUBLISHED June 30, 2011 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 297900 Ingham Circuit Court FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE LC No. 09-000166-CK

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, * Hassell, Keenan and Koontz, JJ.

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, * Hassell, Keenan and Koontz, JJ. Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, * Hassell, Keenan and Koontz, JJ. Lacy, MICHAEL F. HAISLIP OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 962214 September 12, 1997 SOUTHERN HERITAGE

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-0477. Michael Marchio, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Ida Marchio, Appellant, vs.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-0477. Michael Marchio, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Ida Marchio, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-0477 Michael Marchio, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Ida Marchio, Appellant, vs. Western National Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. Filed April 15, 2008 Reversed

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION LOUISE FOSTER Administrator of the : AUGUST TERM 2010 Estate of GEORGE FOSTER : and BARBARA DILL : vs.

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2496. September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2496. September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2496 September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Berger, Reed, Rodowsky, Lawrence

More information

ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER XI INSURANCE COVERAGE AND DEFENSES. Uninsured motorist coverage protects the policyholder who is injured by an

ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER XI INSURANCE COVERAGE AND DEFENSES. Uninsured motorist coverage protects the policyholder who is injured by an If you have questions or would like further information regarding Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Coverage, please contact: Jennifer Medenwald 312-540-7588 jmedenwald@querrey.com Result Oriented. Success

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOHN R. OBENCHAIN BRIAN M. KUBICKI Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana IN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REL: 06/30/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 8, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001800-MR PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v.

More information

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 :

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 : 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in

More information

RENDERED: JULY 19, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-000345-MR

RENDERED: JULY 19, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-000345-MR RENDERED: JULY 19, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-000345-MR CECILIA WINEBRENNER; and J. RICHARD HUGHES, Administrator of the Estate of DANIELLE

More information

OVERVIEW OF THE MVFRL AND INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW OF THE MVFRL AND INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS OVERVIEW OF THE MVFRL AND INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS Scott B. Cooper, Esquire SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 scooper@schmidtkramer.com 717-232-6300 (t) 717-232-6467 (f) At first

More information

American National General Insurance Company, Colorado Certificate of Authority No. 1885,

American National General Insurance Company, Colorado Certificate of Authority No. 1885, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 06CA0381 Colorado Division of Insurance OAC Case No. IN 2004-006 American National General Insurance Company, Colorado Certificate of Authority No. 1885,

More information

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06. No. 12-1887 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06. No. 12-1887 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06 No. 12-1887 ARTHUR HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF

More information

since recovered the policy limits of both the automobile driver s insurance, and the underinsured motorist benefits covering

since recovered the policy limits of both the automobile driver s insurance, and the underinsured motorist benefits covering IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION OF AMERICA, AN ILLINOIS : STOCK CORPORATION : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KEVIN BEAUCHAMP

More information

St. Paul argues that Mrs. Hugh is not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under her

St. Paul argues that Mrs. Hugh is not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under her The Virginia State Bar requires that all lawyers set forth the following regarding case results: CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MEEMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, as the subrogee of CATHERINE EPPARD and KEVIN BYRNES, FOR PUBLICATION October 27, 2015 9:10 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 322072 Wexford Circuit

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 12-3052 ROBERT WEHRLE and HEIKE WEHRLE, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS For Publication IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS FLORILYN TRIA JONES and JOHN C. JONES, v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 0-0D 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 FELIPE FLORES REYES and

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LINDA Y. HAMMEL Yarling & Robinson Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DAVID J. LANGE Stewart & Stewart Carmel, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

More information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

DIVISION ONE. SALLY ANN BEAVER, a single woman, Plaintiff/Appellee,

DIVISION ONE. SALLY ANN BEAVER, a single woman, Plaintiff/Appellee, IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SALLY ANN BEAVER, a single woman, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY ELIZABETH RASKAUSKAS ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C.A. No. CPU6-09-000991 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE ) DIRECT

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District PAUL LERO & CAROLYN LERO, Respondents, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WD73220 FILED: October 25, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE

More information

PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NUMBER 73,50 Plaintiff, Petitioner, PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Respondent. I.. ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DECISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 2001 WI App 12 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 00-0950 Complete Title of Case: ALICIA DANIELSON, V. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ANDREA H. GASPER, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, AND WISCONSIN

More information

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter 295 Ga. 487 FINAL COPY S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ. Case: 13-15213 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE ) Arizona Supreme Court COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, ) No. CV-11-0324-CQ ) Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, ) United States ) District

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN ZACHARY J. STOCK Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: KEVIN W. AULT Rushville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

BULLETIN 96-7 FREQUENT PROBLEMS FOUND IN FILINGS

BULLETIN 96-7 FREQUENT PROBLEMS FOUND IN FILINGS 1 of 8 6/25/2008 3:39 PM BULLETIN 96-7 FREQUENT PROBLEMS FOUND IN FILINGS Property and Casualty Lines Over the years we have found that insurance companies consistently fail to make their forms and filings

More information

Mut. Ins. Co., 565 S.W.2d 716, 726 (Mo. App. 1978). Nor is the carrier entitled to proceeds from any claim its insured may have against anyone else.

Mut. Ins. Co., 565 S.W.2d 716, 726 (Mo. App. 1978). Nor is the carrier entitled to proceeds from any claim its insured may have against anyone else. Settlement and Mediation of UM and UIM Claims Michael J. Mohlman Smith Coonrod Mohlman, LLC 7001 W. 79th Street Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (913) 495-9965; Facsimile: (913) 894-1686 mike@smithcoonrod.com

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 15-1100. FRANCIS J. GUGLIELMELLI Appellant STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 15-1100. FRANCIS J. GUGLIELMELLI Appellant STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1100 FRANCIS J. GUGLIELMELLI Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION

[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION [Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83125 JOYCE L. FINKOVICH, Plaintiff-appellant vs. STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES,

More information

Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O N

Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O N Supreme Court No. 2000-205-Appeal. (PC 99-4922) John J. McVicker et al. v. Travelers Insurance Company et al. : : : Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O

More information

Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CRYSTAL WILLIAMS * * v. * Case No. CCB-10-2583 * TRAVCO INSURANCE CO. * ******

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: NOVEMBER 5, 2010; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-001056-MR WENDY W. BURTON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HARLAN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE RUSSELL D.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHAREN W. WELLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2011 v No. 294394 Lake Circuit Court HARRY LEE MCCULLOUGH, LC No. 09-007559-NI and Defendant, HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1627

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1627 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1627 Michael Bundul, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Carol Bundul, and individually, Respondent, vs. Travelers Indemnity Company d/b/a Travelers,

More information