Shelter provided UIM coverage under one of the policies but denied UIM coverage under the other two insurance policies, asserting that Ms. Seaton's daughter was not a defined insured for UIM coverage.

Ms. Seaton went to court, seeking a declaration that UIM coverage existed for her daughter under the two policies and alleging breach of contract.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Seaton and the dispute reached the Supreme Court of Missouri.

The Shelter Policies

Shelter's two policies provided that Shelter would pay uncompensated damages, subject to stated limitations, when:

an insured sustains bodily injury as a result of an accident involving the use of an underinsured motor vehicle. . . .

The policies defined “insured” to be:

(a) You;

(b) any relative; and

(c) any individual occupying the described auto who is listed in the Declarations as an “additional listed insured”, if:

(i) that individual does not own a motor vehicle; and

(ii) that individual's spouse does not own a motor vehicle.

Shelter's insurance policies stated:

You means any person listed as a named insured in the Declarations

Shelter defined “named insured” as:

any person listed in the Declarations under the heading “Named Insured”. It does not include persons listed under other headings unless they are also listed under the heading “Named Insured”

Excluded from the definition of “relative” was:

any individual who owns a motor vehicle

The Missouri Supreme Court's Decision

The court reversed, holding that Ms. Seaton's daughter was not an insured under the Shelter policies.

The court explained that Ms. Seaton's daughter did not meet the definition of “you” because she was not listed as a named insured on either insurance policy for which Shelter denied coverage. The court acknowledged that Ms. Seaton's daughter was listed as an “Additional Listed Insured,” but pointed out that the insurance policies' “plain language” indicated that an “additional listed insured” was not the same as a “named insured.”

The court then ruled that Ms. Seaton's daughter was not entitled to UIM coverage as a “relative” of Ms. Seaton because she owned a motor vehicle.

Finally, the court decided that Ms. Seaton's daughter also did not meet the final definition of “insured” – an “individual occupying the described auto” – because she was a passenger in Ms. Deaton's vehicle at the time her injuries occurred and she was not an occupant of either vehicle insured by the two Shelter insurance policies.

Because the two Shelter policies only extended coverage to insured individuals and Ms. Seaton's daughter did not meet the definition of an insured, there was no UIM coverage, the court concluded.

The case is Seaton v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., No. No. SC97511 (Mo. June 4, 2019). The Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers filed an amicus brief in support of Shelter. The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Seaton.