## Facts

- Jennifer McConville ran a stop sign while driving her parents’ car and struck Mark Karscig’s motorcycle, injuring him.
- Karscig sued McConville and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, which insured (1) McConville’s parents’ accident vehicle and (2) a separate vehicle under a policy issued to McConville.
- American Family paid liability coverage under the parents’ policy covering the accident vehicle.
- Karscig sought an additional $25,000 (Missouri’s statutory minimum liability limit) under McConville’s separate American Family policy.
- American Family relied on (1) a household/owned-or-regular-use exclusion and (2) anti-stacking language capping recovery to the highest single policy limit regardless of multiple policies.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to American Family, finding the exclusion and anti-stacking provisions barred recovery under McConville’s policy.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) requires McConville’s liability policy to provide at least the statutory minimum coverage for this accident despite a household/owned-vehicle exclusion.
2. Whether anti-stacking provisions can eliminate a second policy’s obligation to provide the statutory minimum liability limits when another household policy already paid for the same accident.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment de novo and reversed.
- The court held American Family had to provide an additional $25,000 in liability coverage under McConville’s policy for the accident.
- The court ruled the household/owned-vehicle exclusion could not be enforced to deny the statutorily required minimum liability coverage.
- The court ruled anti-stacking language could not be used to reduce coverage below the statutory minimum required under each applicable policy.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

## Legal Principles

- MVFRL requirements are incorporated into liability policies as a matter of law, and policy provisions conflicting with those requirements are void to the extent of the conflict.
- A liability policy subject to MVFRL must provide at least the statutory minimum limits for damages arising from an insured’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
- Household/owned-or-regular-use exclusions may limit coverage above the statutory minimum, but they cannot eliminate the minimum limits required by MVFRL.
- Anti-stacking clauses may restrict contractual aggregation of coverage above mandatory minimums, but they cannot prevent recovery of the statutory minimum limits owed under each policy that applies.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court held that MVFRL compels each applicable liability policy to provide at least the statutory minimum coverage for an insured’s negligent driving, rendering household exclusions and anti-stacking provisions unenforceable to the extent they would reduce coverage below that minimum, and required American Family to pay an additional $25,000 under McConville’s separate policy.


Karscig v. McConville, 303 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. 2010)