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

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

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 379.203, 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

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 379.203 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. 50 1. 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

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.61 2. 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

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. 86 3. 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

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 $80,000. 97 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. 98 1. 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. 112 2. 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

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. 127 3. 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 $50,000 214 / 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.... 143 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.... 148 [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. 151 4. 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).

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 2008-2009 one in seven drivers was uninsured nationwide. Press Release, Insurance Research Council, Recession Marked by Bump in Uninsured Motorists (April 21, 2011); available at http://www.insuranceresearch.org/sites/default/files/downloads/ IRCUM2011_042111.pdf (last visited June 6, 2012). 3 Section 379.203, 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 http://www.insuranceresearch.org/sites/default/files/downloads/ IRC_UM_012109.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 303.030.5, RSMo (2000). 8 Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Mo. banc 1976). 9 Id. at 543. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. at 542. 14 Id. at 543. 15 Id. at 543. 16 Id. at 544. 17 Id. at 545. 18 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 539. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. at 539-40. 26 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 541. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 543-44. 32 Id. at 544-45. 33 Id. at 545. 34 Id. at 544-45. 35 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, 521-22 (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 702. 42 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, 704-05. 45 Ritchie, 307 S.W.3d at 135. 46 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, 723-24 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993). 51 325 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). 52 Id. at 533. 53 Id. 54 Id. at 540. 55 Id. 56 Id. 57 Id. at 539-40. 58 Id. at 540. 59 Id. at 540-41. 60 Id. at 541. 61 Id. 62 351 S.W.3d 692, 701, 704-05 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). 63 Id. at 695. 64 Id. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 Id. 68 Id. 69 Id. at 701. 70 Id. at 699. 71 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 700. 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 Id. at 702. July-August 2012 / 215

80 Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at 534. 81 Long, 351 S.W.3d at 700. 82 Id. at 701. 83 Id. at 698. 84 Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at 534. 85 Long, 351 S.W.3d at 701. 86 Id. 87 Id. at 701. 88 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 139. 91 Id. at 136-37. 92 Id. at 139. 93 Id. at 139-41. 94 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 140. 96 Id. at 141. 97 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 533. 102 Id. at 539. 103 Id. at 535. 104 Id. at 533 (quoting Lynch s Shelter policy). 105 Id. at 535. 106 Id. at 533 (quoting Lynch s Shelter policy). 107 Id. at 536. 108 Id. 109 Id. 110 Id. at 537. 111 Id. at 539. 112 Id. 113 334 S.W.3d 592, 596 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011). 114 Id. at 594. 115 Id. 116 Id. 117 Id. 118 Id. at 595. 119 Id. at 597-98. 120 Id. at 594. 121 Id. 122 Id. 123 Id. at 596. 124 Id. 125 Id. 126 Id. at 597. 127 Id. at 596-98. 128 Long v. Shelter Ins. Co., 351 S.W.3d 692, 705 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). 129 Id. at 701. 130 See id. at 695. 131 Id. at 704. 132 See id. at 702-04. 133 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 700. 138 Id. at 705 n.16. 139 Id. at 702-03. 140 Id. at 703. 141 Id. at 702. 142 Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at 533 (emphasis added). 143 Long, 351 S.W.3d at 704. 144 Id. 145 Id. at 703. 146 Id. 147 Id. at 704. 148 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 705. 152 Id. at 702. 153 Straw, 334 S.W.3d at 596. 154 Lynch, 325 S.W.3d at 534. 155 Ritchie, 307 S.W.3d at 136-37. Chart 1 Chart 3 Chart 4 Chart 2 216 / Journal of the MISSOURI BAR