Section 6.4 “Insured”

• Library: Insurance Practice 2015

Section 379.203, RSMo 2000, states that “persons insured” are those covered by the law and the policy. Typically, the policy defines “Insured” as follows:

B. “Insured” as used in this Part means:

1. You or any “family member”.

2. Any other person “occupying” “your covered auto”.

3. Any person for damages that person is entitled to recover because of “bodily injury” to which this coverage applies sustained by a person described in 1. or 2. above.

Copyright, ISO Properties, Inc., 1998.

The three classes of insureds are:

1. the named insured and “family members” who do not own an auto;

2. family members or any other person “occupying” the insured’s “covered auto”; and

3. any person entitled to recover damages because of bodily injury to a person described in 1 or 2 above.

Those persons in class 1 get the broadest coverage. They are covered while occupying a nonexcluded motor vehicle, while a pedestrian, or while off the public highways. The difficulty is determining who is an “insured” or “family member.”

The son of a “significant other” who lived with the policy holder was not an insured when the policy defined “relative” as “a person related to the named insured or spouse by blood, marriage, or adoption.” Mabry v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo., 933 S.W.2d 854, 855–56 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). A former stepchild is not a “resident relative” when living with the former stepfather. Devine v. Gateway Ins. Co., 60 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). But the father of an illegitimate child was allowed to maintain a wrongful death action under UM coverage because the child was a “relative” and was living in the named insured’s home, and was therefore a member of the “household.” The mother was permitted to join with the father in recovering for the death of the child. Cobb v. State Sec. Ins. Co., 576 S.W.2d 726 (Mo. banc 1979). A noncustodial father was entitled to UM benefits when the court held that the child was a resident of two households and the father and child continued to function as a family unit. Countryside Cas. Co. v. McCormick,722 S.W.2d 655 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987). A nephew was a “resident” of his uncle’s household even though he intended to return to his parents’ home and already had return flight tickets. Pruitt v. Farmers Ins. Co., 950 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997).

When a mother owned three automobiles, but insurance on automobile 1 was issued in the daughter’s name and paid for by the mother and the daughter was injured while operating...