Dawn and Gary Bland were insured under a policy issued by Progressive which insured a 2009 Chevy Silverado which had UM limits of $50,000.00. The Silverado was a “Covered Auto” listed and described on the Declarations. The policy had a standard definition of an uninsured motor vehicle which provided, “However, an “uninsured motor vehicle” does not include any vehicle or equipment …… that is a covered auto.” While driving the Silverado, Dawn was carjacked by defendant Kevin Jobe, and in the process, she was ejected from the vehicle and sustained bodily injuries.
The Court first found that the policy language removing a covered auto from the definition of an uninsured vehicle was not ambiguous or contrary to the public policy expressed in the Missouri Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), RSMo. § 379.203. The Court also pointed out that the Progressive policy would not require a defense of indemnification of Jobe since he was a non-permissive driver, thus, liability coverage for the driver Jobe in Dawn’s suit against the Jobe would not be required under the MVFRL.
Notwithstanding the fact that Dawn was injured by use of a vehicle that was not covered under the UM terms, conditions and definitions, the Court held that she was entitled to UM coverage for the following reasons. In Missouri an automobile liability policy must provide UM coverage. The Missouri Supreme Court has held that “By its clear language, Section 379.203 requires a minimum amount of coverage to person, not particularly described vehicles.”
First Nat. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Clark, 899 S.W.2d 520, 521 (Mo. 1995). Following Clark, Missouri courts have held that any policy terms that purport to limit UM coverage to a particularly described vehicle violate the MVFL. This focus is in contrast with liability insurance which follows the use and operation of a particularly described motor vehicle or class of motor vehicles.
The Court found Dawn met the elements of a UM claim because Jobe was not using that vehicle with permission, the Progressive policy provided no liability coverage to Jobe for Dawns bodily injury. There was no evidence of any other policy that would provide liability coverage to Jobe for his tortious conduct. Therefore, Jobe was an uninsured driver, the UM coverage was triggered, and judgment was entered against Progressive. Bland v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 665 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. Ct. Ap. S.D. 2023).