St Louis Missouri Motor Vehicle Accident - Under Insured Motorist Coverage - Set-Off - Settlement for Policy Limits of $100,000 - Broken Leg and Patella Implant
Car accident in Chesterfield Missouri on Long Road with questionable liability as there were conflicting witness accounts as to whether the intersection traffic light was green or had a green arrow. Our client made a left turn pursuant to a green arrow and was broad-sided. Client suffered a broken leg and knee requiring a patella implant. After full recovery from the other driver's insurance we were able to recover $100,000 (policy limits) from our client's under-insured motorist coverage despite set-off clauses in the policy and the insurance company's claim that the policy payout was set-off by the recovery from the other driver. The insurance company settled for the UIM policy limit.

What is Set-off in this situation? After a victim of injury resulting from a car accident recovers from the other party's insurance company in full (i.e. the other at fault party only had $25,000 in coverage) and that amount does not fully compensate the injury victim, then if the victim had under-insured motorist coverage (as our client did in this case) then the under-insured coverage carrier can sometimes take a set-off against the coverage amount the victim had. In this case, the under-insured carrier tried to claim that since $25,000 was recovered from the at fault party, then that amount should be deducted from the $100,000 under-insured coverage therefore they should only have to pay out $75,000. We were able to prevent that in this case due to a strict reading of the insurance policy and specifically it's under-insured and set-off clauses and they paid out the full $100,000 to our client as the set-off clause was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.
MISSOURI INSURANCE SET-OFF CASE LAW
See Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. App. WD 1996) Court read the policy’s UIM “set-off” provision against the policy’s “other insurance” provision and found it ambiguous because the language described the UIM as “excess over any other collectible insurance.”
