Reisig v. Allstate Insurance Company, 264 Neb. 74

Summary

Raymond Reisig sought uninsured motorists coverage under his Allstate commercial automobile insurance policy for injuries sustained while he was a passenger in an uninsured vehicle. The Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the policy's uninsured motorists endorsement was ambiguous regarding whether coverage for the named insured was limited to injuries involving a covered automobile, and construed the ambiguity in Reisig's favor. The court reversed the summary judgment for Allstate and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The uninsured motorist endorsement was ambiguous because its definition of an insured as 'You' could reasonably be read either as standing alone or as limited by the introductory phrase 'For a covered auto.'
2. The ambiguous uninsured motorist policy language must be construed in favor of the insured.
3. As a matter of law, Reisig's policy did not limit his uninsured motorist coverage solely to instances involving a covered automobile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the uninsured motorist endorsement was ambiguous regarding whether coverage for the named insured was limited to injuries involving a covered automobile.
2. Whether, under Nebraska law, the ambiguity in the uninsured motorist endorsement had to be construed in favor of Reisig.
3. Whether Allstate was entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of Reisig's declaratory judgment action.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded