 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haulers Insurance Co.9/2/2005
000 of coverage per person injured in a single incident with a covered auto, if fifty people were injured in one accident, there would be $500,000 coverage for each of the fifty people. It contends that this is not what it or the insured intended when they entered into a single limit coverage insurance policy.
Whether an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law. Martin v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. , 996 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Mo. banc 1999). When interpreting an insurance policy, "we give the language its plain meaning, which is the meaning that would ordinarily be understood by a layperson who bought the policy." Tapley v. Shelter Ins. Co. , 91 S.W.3d 755, 757 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002). When there is "duplicity, indistinctness or uncertainty in the meaning of the words used in the insurance policy," there is an ambiguity. Id. Ambiguous provisions of an insurance policy are construed against the insurer. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. May , 972 S.W.2d 595, 602 (Mo.App. W.D. 1998). However, this court will not distort unambiguous policy language to create an ambiguity. Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Moore , 970 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). This court must consider the policy as a whole when interpreting the specific language at issue. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin , 972 S.W.2d at 602. "When construing an insurance policy, courts should interpret the policy language in a manner that is consistent with the reasonable expectations, objectives, and intent of the parties." Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bramlett , 31 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. The policy unambiguously limits liability coverage to $500,000 per accident, regardless of the number of people injured in that accident. The policy language clearly provides, in describing the limits of insurance for accidents involving a covered auto, that " egardless of the number of . . . claims made or vehicles involved . . . the most we will pay for the total of all damages and 'covered pollution cost or expense' combined, resulting from any one 'accident' involving a covered 'auto' is the Each 'Accident' Limit of Insurance - 'Garage Operations' - Covered 'Autos' for Liability Coverage shown in the Declarations." Appellant's contention that a layperson would believe that each person's injury was a separate "accident" is contrary to the plain meaning of the term "accident." An automobile collision between two vehicles that produces multiple injuries does not lead to the conclusion that there were multiple accidents, but rather one "accident" that produced injuries arising from that occurrence. This interpretation is in keeping with the "cause" approach approved in Koelling, 729 S.W.2d at 252-253.
Likewise, we find that Appellant's contention that by using the words "a person" in the definition of "bodily injury ," and then incorporating "bodily injury" into the definition of "accident," impliedly defines "accident" as what happens to one person rather than to all persons involved in a collision is not well taken. In this regard, we agree with the reasoning of Robertson. We are required to interpret the policy in accordance with the intent of the parties. Bramlett, 31 S.W.3d at 4. If the parties had intended that the policy provide a separate limit of liability for each person injured in an accident, the policy could have, but did not state that. We will not stretch the language of the policy beyond the bounds of reason to create an ambiguity where this is none.
Appellant's point on appeal is denied. The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|