Johnson v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, No. 19-2227 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against Safeco after the insurance company denied her underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Safeco.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that this case does not involve a set-off within a policy but stacking of separate policies; the anti-stacking provision in the policy unambiguously limits the total of plaintiff's UIM coverage to the highest applicable limit; and Safeco's coverage is not illusory. Therefore, Safeco's anti-stacking provision does not preclude Safeco's excess coverage from ever applying—it simply prevents plaintiff from stacking coverage from different policies when she has already received the highest applicable limit of UIM coverage.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Benton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. Because plaintiff had already received from her employer's Uninsured Motorist (UIM) Coverage a sum greater than the maximum possible UIM Coverage under her own insurance, her insurer did not owe her any additional recovery; preventing plaintiff from stacking the two UIM coverage provisions did not render her insurer's coverage illusory, as it is undisputed that her insurer would have paid her if her recovery from her employer's policy was less than the applicable limit for all UIM coverage.
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.