Karscig v. McConville
303 S.W.3d 499, 2010 WL 97995, 2010 Mo. LEXIS 2 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) mandates that every owner's and operator's automobile insurance policy provide minimum liability coverage, overriding contractual exclusions or anti-stacking provisions that conflict with this statutory requirement for coverage arising from the use of non-owned vehicles.
Facts:
- On October 12, 2005, Mark Karscig was seriously injured when his motorcycle was struck by a 1998 Pontiac Grand Am driven by Jennifer McConville.
- Jennifer McConville admitted fault for running a stop sign and causing the wreck, and Karscig's medical bills exceeded $200,000.
- Jennifer's parents owned the 1998 Pontiac Grand Am she was driving, and it was insured under an American Family policy ('parents’ policy') that provided $25,000 per person bodily injury liability coverage.
- Jennifer also had a separate American Family policy ('Jennifer’s policy') for which she was the policyholder and paid premiums, listing a 1990 Pontiac Grand Am, which her parents also owned.
- Jennifer's policy contained an exclusion for 'any vehicle, other than your insured car, which is owned by or furnished or available for regular use by you or any resident of your household.'
- Jennifer's policy also included two 'anti-stacking' provisions, one limiting total liability to the highest limit under any one policy if multiple policies are issued to 'you,' and another limiting payments 'no matter how many ... policies ... are involved.'
- American Family denied coverage under Jennifer's policy based on the household vehicle exclusion and anti-stacking provisions.
- Jennifer did not own the 1990 Pontiac Grand Am listed on her policy, nor did she own the 1998 Pontiac Grand Am involved in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Karscig filed suit against Jennifer McConville for negligence and against American Family Mutual Insurance Company for a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that Jennifer’s policy provided coverage for his claims.
- The trial court severed the negligence action from the declaratory judgment action.
- American Family Mutual Insurance Company filed a counterclaim and cross-claim for declaratory judgment, asking the trial court to find that Jennifer’s policy did not provide coverage due to the household exclusion and anti-stacking provisions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance Company.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an automobile insurance policy's exclusion for household vehicles and an anti-stacking provision override the Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) requirement that an operator's policy provide minimum liability coverage for the insured's use of any non-owned vehicle, thereby precluding additional coverage when the insured is covered by multiple policies?
Opinions:
Majority - WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Chief Justice
Yes, an automobile insurance policy's exclusion for household vehicles and an anti-stacking provision do not override the Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) requirement that an operator's policy provide minimum liability coverage for the insured's use of any non-owned vehicle, thus allowing additional coverage when the insured is covered by multiple policies. The court determined that Jennifer's policy was an 'operator's policy' under Missouri law because she did not hold legal title to the vehicle listed on her policy or the vehicle involved in the accident. An 'operator's policy' is issued to a person who operates a vehicle not owned by them. Section 303.190.3 of the MVFRL mandates that an operator's policy 'shall insure' the named person against liability arising from the use of 'any motor vehicle not owned by him or her.' The household vehicle exclusion in Jennifer's policy, which sought to exclude coverage for non-owned vehicles available for regular use, directly conflicted with this statutory mandate and was therefore invalid. Regarding the anti-stacking provisions, the court found the first provision inapplicable because it only limited liability when multiple policies were issued to the same 'you' (policyholder), and Jennifer had only one policy issued to her. The second anti-stacking provision, which attempted to limit liability regardless of 'how many ... policies ... are involved,' was also deemed invalid under the MVFRL. Citing American Standard Insurance Company v. Hargrave, the court reaffirmed that the MVFRL requires each valid owner's or operator's policy to provide the minimum liability limits ($25,000 per person) and does not restrict payments to a single policy when multiple policies provide coverage. The court distinguished First National Ins. Co. v. Clark, noting that in Clark, the driver was the sole policyholder for both vehicles, whereas in this case, Jennifer did not own the accident vehicle, and coverage was provided by two distinct policies (Jennifer's operator's policy and her parents' owner's policy).
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on the interpretation of the MVFRL, specifically distinguishing between 'owner's policies' and 'operator's policies' and prioritizing statutory minimum coverage over conflicting contractual exclusions. It reinforces Missouri's public policy that victims of negligent drivers receive minimum compensation, ensuring that anti-stacking provisions cannot prevent the payment of statutory minimum liability limits from each applicable policy. The ruling has significant implications for insurers drafting policies and for individuals seeking to recover damages from accidents involving multiple insurance coverages.
