The United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri recently granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company on claims for underinsured motorist benefits and vexatious refusal to pay.  At issue was whether Progressive’s policy of insurance, which required the limits of liability coverage for the tortfeasor to be less than the limit of UIM coverage in the Progressive policy, provided UIM benefits.  The insured claimed that while the tortfeasor’s liability coverage was equal to, and not less than, the limits of the UIM coverage in Progressive’s policy, because the policy was ambiguous it must be construed against Progressive to provide coverage.  The insured further claimed that coverage on three separate vehicles insured under the policy stacked.  In addressing the coverage arguments, the District Court held that the policy was unambiguous.  The Court further held that the tortfeasor’s vehicle did not constitute an underinsured motor vehicle as that term is used throughout the policy, and as such, UIM coverage was not triggered by the facts and circumstances of the case.  The insured additionally argued that coverage was required based upon the reasonable expectations doctrine.  The District Court, however, rejected the insured’s request to apply the reasonable expectations doctrine based concluding that the doctrine has no application where the policy is unambiguous.  Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Morton, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00078.  Progressive was represented by FSM partner Nikki Cannezzaro.