“[W]here language in an insurance contract is unequivocal, it is to be given its plain meaning notwithstanding the fact that it appears in a restrictive provision of a policy.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]here language in an insurance contract is unequivocal, it is to be given its plain meaning notwithstanding the fact that it appears in a restrictive provision of a policy.”
- exclusions from the definitions of “uninsured highway vehicle” placed after the definition of one type of “uninsured highway vehicle” found unambiguous
- policy language which precludes "insured motor vehicle" from being an "uninsured motor vehicle" not contrary to public policy
- “ ‘the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another’ ” (quoting Brown v. Morris, 365 Mo. 946, 290 S.W.2d 160, 166 (1956))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BARDGETT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The issue is whether the uninsured motorist clause of the driver’s insurance policy applies where the other persons in the car are members of the insured’s household where the insuring provisions of the policy exclude such persons from the benefit of the public liability provisions of the policy.
If MFA were free to contract as they saw fit with respect to uninsured motorist coverage, I would be in agreement with the principal opinion. However, it does not enjoy that privilege. The statute, § 379.203 RSMo., requires the policy to contain a provision providing certain monetary coverage “for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, etc., . . . ”
Now it is clear that the driver’s widow, Betty Bush, (now Betty Harrison), and Kathy Pridgen, stepdaughter of Vernon Bush, were “insureds” for a number of purposes under the policy. As members of the insured’s household they were insured if they were driving the car under all coverages and were “insureds” under the medical pay provisions at the time of the instant accident. However, they were excluded from the benefits of the liability section. That is to say that even if Kathy Pridgen, for instance, sued the driver (or his estate) and recovered a judgment the MFA would not be required to pay out any money under the liability section of the policy. The “household exclusion” excludes the insured and member of the household from being the recipient of money paid under the liability section. It does not exclude them from having the status of an “insured” for all purposes and they were “insureds” when this accident happened.
The statute is direct and to the point. It requires uninsured motorists coverage for the benefit of persons insured under the policy who are legally entitled to recover damages from the operator of an uninsured *149 motor vehicle. Here, Kathy Pridgen, is legally entitled to sue, and if successful, recover damages from the driver’s estate and she is an insured under the policy and the auto was uninsured as to her.
In my opinion the insurance policy cannot exclude from uninsured motorist coverage anyone for whom the statute mandates coverage. Betty Bush and Kathy Pridgen are such persons. I therefore dissent.