Munroe, et al. v. Continental Western Ins., No. 13-1290 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff was injured operating his employer's truck and came to a settlement with the tortfeasors. Then plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Continental for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in his employer's policy. The district court granted Continental's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs could not stack their claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in finding a $2 million UIM limit where there was no ambiguity in the policy's selection form because the declarations page and UIM coverage endorsement specify a $500,000 UIM limit and the selection form did not contradict this limit. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to timely file their cross petition did not preclude review of the stacking claim. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs' arguments lacked merit and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' stacking claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. In a case involving possible stacking of plaintiff's employer's uninsured motorist coverages, the district court erred in finding a $2 million uninsured motorist limit because the declarations page and uninsured motorist coverage endorsement specified a $500,000 limit, and the selection form did not contradict this limit or create an ambiguity; plaintiffs' failure to timely file their cross-petition does not preclude review of the stacking issue raised by their cross-appeal; district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' stacking claim as their injuries resulted from a single accident.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.