Brown & James 

General Defense & Insurance

Law Symposium 

In This Issue

In Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. MacVittie, No. WD76401 (Mo. App. W.D. Dec. 24, 2013), the Missouri Court of Appeals, in addressing the amount of coverage available under an automobile liability policy, held that a loss of consortium claim is not a separate and distinct bodily injury claim from the injured spouse's claim.  Therefore, the court held the wife's consortium claim was subject to the same single "each person" limit as her husband's bodily injury claim.  The court, in so ruling, explained that the wife's consortium claim was a derivative action that did not entitle her to a separate and additional policy limit.

The Missouri Court of Appeals, in Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., No. WD75725 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 12, 2013), reaffirmed the rule in Missouri that the decedent's spouse and child did not have standing as "insureds" to bring an independent claim for UM coverage based on the decedent's wrongful death.  The court explained that the husband, who was killed in a collision with an uninsured motorist, was "the insured" for purposes of determining the extent of UM coverage available to his wife and daughter under two automobile policies that covered vehicles other than the one that the insured was driving at the time of his death, rather than the wife, who was also a named insured under each policy, but who was not occupying any car at the time.  Therefore, the court held that the UM coverage available to the wife and daughter was limited under each policy to the statutory minimum of $25,000.

The insureds, in their first-party insurance claim, represented that their $200,000 RV accidentally jumped into gear, rolled down a ravine, and was thus destroyed.  In American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coke, No. ED98871 (Mo. App. E.D. Nov. 12, 2013), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that circumstantial evidence of the insureds' financial condition and their requested increase in insurance coverage constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict that their loss was not accidental.  The Court also approved the jury instruction for use in a material misrepresentation case.

In Kotini v. Century Surety Co., No. ED99520 (Mo. App. E.D. Oct. 22, 2013), the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld an assault and battery exclusion as a complete defense to coverage for injuries sustained by a tavern patron when he was removed from the premises by the insured's bouncer.  The court, in so ruling, rejected the patron's contention that the exclusion was ambiguous because it contained undefined terms, explaining that when those terms are given their ordinary meaning according to standard dictionary definitions, the patron's claim plainly fell under the exclusion.  The court also held the policy's expected and intended injury exclusion did not render the policy ambiguous when the policy was read as a whole.

The Missouri Court of Appeals, in D.T. v. Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, No. WD76025 (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 12, 2013), reaffirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997), which, on First Amendment freedom of religion grounds, barred claims against church organizations for negligence in failing to supervise, retain, hire, and ordain clergy persons.  In addition, the court reaffirmed the rule in Gibson that liability in intentional tort claims requires the underlying misconduct to take place on church property.  This case is recommended reading for a complete review of Missouri law governing clergy sex abuse cases.

Recent Trial Results

Corey Kraushaar and Sam Vincent upheld on appeal a defense verdict in a serious personal injury action arising from a car/motorcycle collision.  At trial, the plaintiff claimed over $6 million in damages.

Joe Swift obtained a defendant's verdict in a serious personal injury action tried in Phelps County arising from an accident in which the defendant's tractor trailer "rear ended" the plaintiff's vehicle.

In a co-employee liability claim, Brad Hansmann and John Greffet obtained summary judgment for their client, a co-employee driver who ran over the plaintiff while on the job.  The court found that Brad's client was immune from civil liability based on Missouri's workers' compensation law.

In a case where a severely injured passenger in a one-car rollover accident had obtained a $2.5 million judgment against the insured driver, Russ Watters and Cynthia Juedemann obtained summary judgment for their insurance company client. They established there was no coverage under the policy because the insured driver was engaged in a criminal act at the time of the accident (i.e., transportation of 200 pounds of marijuana) and had also misrepresented to the insurer his purpose for procuring the insurance.

Joe Swift and Scott Morgan obtained a defendant's verdict in a slip and fall case tried in St. Louis County for their client, a national restaurant chain.  The plaintiff had claimed permanent and total disability.

Kristie Crawford and Mike Ward persuaded the Missouri Court of Appeals to reverse the summary judgment entered against their insurance company client on a UIM stacking claim.  On appeal, the appellate court ruled that the policy's UIM anti-stacking disclaimer language provided an unambiguous defense to the insured's stacking claim.