In Bate v. Greenwich Ins. Co., No. WD76086 (Mo. App. W.D. April 29, 2014), a default judgment was entered against an insurer that failed to respond to an equitable garnishment action seeking $3 million in coverage based on service of process directed to the Director of Insurance, which, in turn, mailed the summons by regular mail to the insurer. The plaintiff then executed on the judgment after a year had passed, when the insurer's recourse to setting aside the judgment was limited to challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to enter the judgment. The insurer argued that it never received the summons and that there was no independent proof that the Director's mail service ever reached the insurer. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment setting aside the default judgment against the insurer. The Court explained that service on the Director of Insurance is only effective when the Director sends the summons by certified mail to the insurer and receives a signed return receipt from the insurer confirming service as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.261. The Court further explained that service under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.906, which permits the Director to send the process to the insurer by regular mail, is enforceable only in those cases in which the insurer accepts such service and actually acknowledges receipt of the service.

Following a long line of recent decisions, the Missouri Court of Appeals in TXR, LLC v. Stricker, No. SD 33036 (Mo. App. S.D. June 11, 2014), upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss a lawsuit and refer it to arbitration. The Court explained that a general statement in a contract that the agreement is subject to arbitration is insufficient, in the face of conflicting language, to require arbitration absent a clear and unequivocal showing that the parties intended the subject matter of the lawsuit to be resolved by arbitration.

The Missouri Court of Appeals in Benton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc., No. ED 100309 (Mo. App. E.D. April 29, 2014), held that, when a slip and fall accident occurs in Illinois, Illinois's two-year statute of limitations governs the action, even though the plaintiff filed her lawsuit in Missouri, where the applicable statute of limitations is five years. In Benton, the plaintiff, a Missouri resident, was traveling in Illinois when she stopped at a Cracker Barrel restaurant for dinner. She fell and seriously injured herself.  She waited four years to file suit in Missouri and argued the five-year Missouri statute should apply because she was a Missouri resident and Cracker Barrel did business and advertised in Missouri. The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected her argument, holding Missouri's "borrowing statute," Mo. Rev. Stat.  § 516.190, required application of Illinois's two-year statute of limitations because Illinois was the state where the plaintiff's cause of action originated.

In Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo. v. Shipman, No. SD 32416 (Mo. App. S.D. May 6, 2014), the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the jury's verdict for Farm Bureau in an action brought by Farm Bureau against its insured to recover $320,000 that it had paid to the insured's mortgage company following a fire on the insured's property. The Court outlined the four essential elements necessary to prove that a fire was set or caused to be set by an insured: (1) the fire was incendiary; (2) motive on the insured's part; (3) the opportunity of the insured or someone on the insured's behalf to set the fire; and (4) inculpating circumstances that are relatively strong. The Court ruled that these elements are met so long as the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence tend more toward the probability of the insured's involvement in the fire. This case makes for recommended reading for lawyers and claim professionals involved in first-party claims.

In Drury Co. v. Missouri United School Ins. Counsel, No. ED100320 (Mo. App. E.D. March 24, 2014), the Missouri Court of Appeals held that even though Drury was only a subcontractor, it had standing to bring a claim under the owner's builder's risk policy because it was a third-party beneficiary under the contract documents. The Court, in finding coverage for Drury, refused to enforce the policy's faulty workmanship exclusion based on the "ensuing loss" exception, and further held that Drury was entitled to damages under Missouri's vexatious-refusal-to-pay statute even though it was not a party to the insurance policy.

In a case of first impression in Missouri, the Missouri Court of Appeals in Ridgell v. McDermott, No. ED100402 (Mo. App. E.D. April 15, 2014), held that the parents of school children with mental disabilities can be held liable for their children's actions at school when the children injure a teacher or fellow student. The Court explained that even though the school took over control and supervision of the child while at school, the child's parents could still be subject to liability for the injuries sustained by teachers and other students if the parents have knowledge of their child's dangerous propensities, but fail to act reasonably to restrain the child from injuring someone else.

In Gu v. ACE INA Ins. Co. of Canada, No. ED100001 (Mo. App. E.D. April 15, 2014), following a judgment entered for the husband and wife in an uncontested action that was part of a Section 537.065 agreement, the husband, and not the wife, brought an equitable garnishment action to satisfy the $13,803,203.46 judgment that the husband had recovered against the insurer's insured. The trial court entered judgment for the husband and against the insurer, finding coverage because the insurer had untimely asserted an exclusion as an affirmative defense. The wife then filed her own garnishment action to satisfy the $1.5 million judgment entered on her consortium claim to which the insurer, this time, timely advanced its exclusion as a coverage defense. The Court nonetheless ruled for the wife, holding the coverage determination in the husband's original garnishment action was binding on the insurer on res judicata grounds. The Court's decision illustrates, once again, the risks that insurers experience in Missouri when they advance coverage defenses in the face of Section 537.065 agreements.

Brad Hansmann tried a wrongful death case representing a trucking company and convinced the jury to return a defense verdict. At trial, the plaintiff contended the slow movement of the defendant's truck impeded traffic and, thus, caused the collision. The jury sided with the trucking company and against the decedent's widow and children whose counsel asked the jury for $4 million in damages.

Tim Wolf prevailed before the Missouri Court of Appeals for his lawyer clients when the Court held that the defendant lawyers were not guilty of breaching their fiduciary duties. The Court so ruled because the lawyers' client had failed to prove any damages proximately caused by the lawyers' alleged malpractice.