{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"insurance","label":"Insurance","description":null,"totalCases":140,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":15},{"year":2019,"count":18},{"year":2020,"count":21},{"year":2021,"count":23},{"year":2022,"count":17},{"year":2023,"count":14},{"year":2024,"count":26},{"year":2025,"count":6}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87569:2025-06-17","opinionId":"09f1dbfd-0cc5-5ff6-a3f6-f07286045f37","slug":"financial-credit-investments-ii-trust-e-v-estate-of-georgia-towers-et-al-d87569","caseName":"Financial Credit Investments II, Trust E\nvs. \nEstate of Georgia Towers, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87569","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Financial Credit Investments II, Trust E, sued the Estate of Georgia Towers and Edwin Towers in Jackson County, Missouri, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding a $5 million life insurance policy and indemnification. The Estate moved to dismiss, citing parallel litigation in Minnesota and Delaware concerning whether the policy was an unlawful \"stranger originated life insurance\" (STOLI) policy. The circuit court dismissed Financial Credit's action, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the dismissal was a proper exercise of discretion under the comity doctrine given the pending out-of-state litigation, similar issues, and Delaware's greater interest.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221317","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/financial-credit-investments-ii-trust-e-v-estate-of-georgia-towers-et-al-d87569","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113072:2025-04-22","opinionId":"42673150-19d8-5999-9653-3117d9fcd43e","slug":"jeremy-scott-and-stephanie-scott-appellants-v-farm-bureau-town-and-countr-113072","caseName":"Jeremy Scott, and Stephanie Scott, Appellants., vs. Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113072","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeremy and Stephanie Scott sued Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Co. of Missouri, seeking coverage and indemnification for a car accident, alleging their policy was in effect. Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment, claiming it had non-renewed the policy by mailing notice. The Scotts denied receiving notice and argued Farm Bureau's notice method did not comply with statutory requirements. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the notice of non-renewal was properly sent as required by law.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219869","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeremy-scott-and-stephanie-scott-appellants-v-farm-bureau-town-and-countr-113072","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100727:2025-03-04","opinionId":"3e857d41-07b6-589d-b797-c83c01a85d00","slug":"in-re-paul-eric-petruska-respondent-100727","caseName":"In re: Paul Eric Petruska, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100727","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged attorney Paul Eric Petruska violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. The disciplinary hearing panel recommended an indefinite suspension with a three-year stay and probation, which Petruska accepted, but OCDC rejected. The Missouri Supreme Court, conducting a de novo review, found Petruska violated Rules 4-1.2(a), 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-3.3, and 4-8.4(c) by settling a case without client authority, misrepresenting facts to the court and clients, and engaging in dishonest conduct. The Court determined disbarment was the baseline sanction under ABA Standard 6.11, making Petruska ineligible for probation, and ultimately imposed an indefinite suspension with no leave to apply for reinstatement for three years.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-paul-eric-petruska-respondent-100727","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100578:2024-12-23","opinionId":"4020c8ab-af74-572a-a5b4-9034d0ea2e84","slug":"jeromy-mccrackin-respondent-v-tynan-mullen-respondent-and-safeco-insuranc-100578","caseName":"Jeromy McCrackin, Respondent, vs. Tynan Mullen, Respondent, and Safeco Insurance Company of America, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100578","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-12-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jeromy McCrackin sued Tynan Mullen for wrongful death. Safeco Insurance Company, Mullen's alleged insurer, moved to intervene in the wrongful death action to seek a stay, pending resolution of a federal declaratory judgment action on coverage. The circuit court denied Safeco's motion. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that an insurer has a right to intervene under Rule 52.12(a)(2) for the limited purpose of seeking a stay in the underlying tort action while coverage questions are litigated.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215913","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeromy-mccrackin-respondent-v-tynan-mullen-respondent-and-safeco-insuranc-100578","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38338:2024-12-17","opinionId":"2bae207c-e749-5fcb-b612-5ee2aaea9888","slug":"donald-w-ingrum-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-ralph-m-orthw-d38338","caseName":"DONALD W. INGRUM, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RALPH M. ORTHWEIN, Appellant\nv.\nCFM INSURANCE, INC., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38338","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Estate of Ralph M. Orthwein sued CFM Insurance, Inc., alleging various claims related to the insurer's failure to pay policy limits for personal property after a fire. The trial court granted summary judgment for CFM Insurance on most counts and dismissed another, finding the insurer exempt from certain Missouri insurance laws as a Chapter 380 mutual insurance company. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Estate failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether CFM Insurance was operating under Chapter 380, despite a past failure to file amended corporate documents.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-w-ingrum-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-ralph-m-orthw-d38338","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38046:2024-12-16","opinionId":"067f8e1f-6eae-5a46-abab-0c0ae1ef2384","slug":"robert-l-hall-md-appellant-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-respo-d38046","caseName":"ROBERT L. HALL, M.D., Appellant\nvs.\nUNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38046","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Hall, M.D., appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and denial of his own motion for summary judgment. Dr. Hall sought lifetime total disability benefits under a policy rider, arguing he was \"totally disabled\" prior to his age-60 policy anniversary, the policy's definition of total disability was ambiguous, or a genuine dispute of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Dr. Hall's arguments regarding policy interpretation or the existence of a factual dispute.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-l-hall-md-appellant-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-respo-d38046","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100461:2024-11-19","opinionId":"f02376c2-a5b8-5776-b4c8-069486a63682","slug":"yolanda-bell-appellant-v-shelter-general-insurance-company-respondent-100461","caseName":"Yolanda Bell, Appellant, vs. Shelter General Insurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100461","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-11-19","year":2024,"display_summary":"Yolanda Bell filed a class action lawsuit against Shelter General Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract for failing to include taxes and fees for a replacement vehicle in its payments for total loss claims. The circuit court dismissed Bell's petition without prejudice, concluding she failed to state a claim because she did not allege she had actually incurred these costs. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bell's petition adequately pleaded a breach of contract claim, and that the definitive interpretation of the insurance policy was premature at the motion to dismiss stage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/yolanda-bell-appellant-v-shelter-general-insurance-company-respondent-100461","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38272:2024-11-12","opinionId":"7e0a77a7-dcde-5965-b168-2673a8f6252a","slug":"robert-bingham-plaintiff-respondent-v-national-liability-fire-insurance-c-d38272","caseName":"ROBERT BINGHAM, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nNATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38272","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Bingham obtained a default judgment against National Liability & Fire Insurance Company in an equitable garnishment action after National failed to respond to the second garnishment petition. National moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing extrinsic fraud and that the trial court should consider grounds beyond fraud under Rule 74.06(d). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that National failed to demonstrate it was free of fault, neglect, or inattention, a prerequisite for equitable relief under Rule 74.06(d). The court also declined to expand the application of Rule 74.06(d) beyond established precedent.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-bingham-plaintiff-respondent-v-national-liability-fire-insurance-c-d38272","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86861:2024-10-29","opinionId":"945c1513-0af0-5f55-bd2a-42fab4d25cf4","slug":"jill-mabie-individually-and-as-a-representative-of-the-wrongful-death-cla-d86861","caseName":"Jill Mabie, Individually, and As A Representative of the Wrongful Death Class of Decedent, Charles Mabie\nvs.\nSomona Mason a/k/a Somona Anderson","caseNumber":"WD86861","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jill Mabie filed a wrongful death action against Somona Mason after Mason caused the death of Mabie's husband in a motor vehicle accident. After a jury awarded Mabie $40,000,000 in damages, the trial court also awarded prejudgment interest. Mason appealed, arguing that Mabie's settlement offer did not comply with section 408.040, RSMo, because she failed to send a certified copy to Mason's insurer and failed to attach a list of employers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Mabie's offer complied with the statute.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","wrongful-death","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213996","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jill-mabie-individually-and-as-a-representative-of-the-wrongful-death-cla-d86861","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86567:2024-09-17","opinionId":"b7bb35a9-0581-5f34-bea5-dd3d06395867","slug":"tracy-sykora-ashley-sykora-and-matthew-sykora-v-farmers-insurance-company-d86567","caseName":"Tracy Sykora, Ashley Sykora and Matthew Sykora\nvs.\nFarmers Insurance Company, INC.","caseNumber":"WD86567","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-09-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Farmers Insurance Company appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sykoras on their equitable garnishment claim, which the trial court certified as final for appeal under Rule 74.01(b). This was Farmers' second attempt to appeal the judgment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's Rule 74.01(b) certification was ineffective because the judgment did not dispose of a distinct \"judicial unit,\" as the Sykoras' bad faith failure to settle claim against Farmers remained pending and arose from the same facts and transactions.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211482","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tracy-sykora-ashley-sykora-and-matthew-sykora-v-farmers-insurance-company-d86567","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38381:2024-08-20","opinionId":"f9a5215b-b993-5f4d-a30b-5e6d12f1af84","slug":"sammy-woods-plaintiff-respondent-v-traders-insurance-company-defendant-ap-d38381","caseName":"SAMMY WOODS, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nTRADERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38381","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sammy Woods sued Trader's Insurance Company for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay after his claim for vehicle damage from an accident was denied. The insurer argued coverage was excluded under the policy's business and delivery exclusions. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Woods on the breach of contract claim. The appellate court reversed, finding that Woods's use of the vehicle to transport chickens for trade constituted a \"delivery related business\" under the policy's exclusion, thus precluding coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sammy-woods-plaintiff-respondent-v-traders-insurance-company-defendant-ap-d38381","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37751:2024-08-15","opinionId":"4bb9e7da-5c88-57d1-b4c5-60de34197d45","slug":"lana-sloan-appellant-v-farm-bureau-town-and-country-insurance-company-of-d37751","caseName":"LANA SLOAN, Appellant\nv.\nFARM BUREAU TOWN AND COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI and JESSE CLARK, JOSEPH WEBB, and BOBBETTE WEBB, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37751","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-15","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lana Sloan appealed from a summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri. Sloan sought medical payments coverage under a policy held by Joseph Webb after she was bitten by a dog owned by Webb's tenant, Jesse Clark, while on a public roadway adjacent to the insured premises. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Farm Bureau, finding the dog was not a \"condition on the insured premises\" as required for coverage. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the policy language, consistent with common understanding and prior case law, does not include mobile property like a dog as a condition on the premises.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lana-sloan-appellant-v-farm-bureau-town-and-country-insurance-company-of-d37751","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86625:2024-07-23","opinionId":"671030f1-e16a-59a0-afb4-604ae4401a05","slug":"benjamin-metzger-by-and-through-his-friend-and-natural-mother-kathryn-met-d86625","caseName":"Benjamin Metzger, by and Through His Friend and Natural Mother, Kathryn Metzger\nvs.\nUnited Services Automobile Association","caseNumber":"WD86625","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Benjamin Metzger, through his mother, obtained a default judgment of $900,000 against United Services Automobile Association (USAA) for underinsured motorist coverage. USAA moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, due process violations, and that the judgment improperly stacked policy limits and lacked evidentiary support for damages. The appellate court affirmed the denial of USAA's motion, holding that USAA failed to provide evidence to support its claims of improper service and that its other arguments were unpreserved merits defenses not cognizable under Rule 74.06(b)(4).","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209874","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/benjamin-metzger-by-and-through-his-friend-and-natural-mother-kathryn-met-d86625","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100238:2024-04-30","opinionId":"a3b667bf-9755-5c22-97be-1a04f92a7d57","slug":"sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-100238","caseName":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza, Appellants, vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100238","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza (Buyers) purchased land with a barn, which was later found to violate city zoning ordinances. Buyers sued Alliant National Title Insurance Co. (Alliant) for breach of a title insurance policy after Alliant refused to defend them in a lawsuit brought by the City of New Melle. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for Alliant, concluding the policy provided no coverage. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy unambiguously required a recorded notice in the public records for coverage under Covered Risk 5, and that Exclusion 1(a) precluded coverage under Covered Risks 2 and 3 for ordinance violations.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207702","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-100238","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111765:2024-03-05","opinionId":"6d733125-4e92-5c59-960a-00c2951cd1a8","slug":"opioid-master-disbursement-trust-ii-aka-opioid-mdt-ii-appellant-v-ace-ame-111765","caseName":"Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II, a/k/a Opioid MDT II, Appellant, vs. Ace American Insurance, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111765","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Opioid Master Disbursement Trust II appealed the trial court's dismissal of its petition for declaratory judgment against various insurers. The Trust sought a declaration of coverage obligations under insurance policies related to opioid mass tort claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a clear and unambiguous forum selection clause in the insurance contracts mandated litigation of disputes in England or Wales, and the Trust failed to show the clause was unfair or unreasonable.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206140","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/opioid-master-disbursement-trust-ii-aka-opioid-mdt-ii-appellant-v-ace-ame-111765","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111805:2024-02-20","opinionId":"17fd9fc2-b22e-5c15-86d0-abd4ad7d7eae","slug":"michael-megown-et-al-appellants-v-auto-club-family-ins-co-respondent-111805","caseName":"Michael Megown, et al., Appellants, v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111805","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael and Jane Megown appealed the trial court's allocation of settlement funds to their insurer, Auto Club Family Insurance Company, as subrogee, from a settlement with a third-party tortfeasor. The Megowns argued that subrogation of personal injury claims is prohibited, and their settlement included such claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court properly allocated the settlement funds, respecting the ban on personal injury subrogation while allowing the property damage subrogation.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","personal-injury","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-megown-et-al-appellants-v-auto-club-family-ins-co-respondent-111805","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85527:2024-02-20","opinionId":"306b5746-cbdb-5fc7-a0d3-d38d31d37d83","slug":"shelter-mutual-insurance-company-v-trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-d85527","caseName":"Shelter Mutual Insurance Company\nvs. \nTrevor Hill, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander","caseNumber":"WD85527","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Shelter Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment holding that a minor child was not a resident of her natural father's household for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion, after the child was injured on the father's property. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the respondents and denied Shelter's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings, holding that summary judgment was improper because the ultimate factual determination of the child's residency remained in dispute, even with stipulated facts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shelter-mutual-insurance-company-v-trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-d85527","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37962:2024-01-09","opinionId":"d68ef87d-9037-5012-8a0d-ab1b434371b2","slug":"thomas-ash-annette-ash-andrew-ash-and-lucas-ash-plaintiffs-appellants-v-g-d37962","caseName":"THOMAS ASH, ANNETTE ASH, ANDREW ASH, and LUCAS ASH, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nGENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY of WISCONSIN, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37962","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Thomas Ash and other plaintiffs brought an equitable garnishment suit against General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, seeking to recover on a judgment they obtained against General Casualty's insured, All-Iowa Contracting Company. The circuit court ruled in favor of General Casualty, finding its policy limits for bodily injury had been exhausted by payments to other claimants. The appellate court affirmed that the bodily injury limits were exhausted. However, it reversed in part, holding that the insurer was obligated under a supplementary payments endorsement to pay court costs and post-judgment interest on the plaintiffs' judgment, but not prejudgment interest. The case was remanded for calculation of these amounts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204397","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-ash-annette-ash-andrew-ash-and-lucas-ash-plaintiffs-appellants-v-g-d37962","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86038:2023-10-31","opinionId":"a0450f71-8b78-5331-9ef4-ea1d88062089","slug":"janet-perea-and-mav-mirfasihi-v-progressive-northwestern-insurance-compan-d86038","caseName":"Janet Perea and Mav Mirfasihi\nvs.\nProgressive Northwestern Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD86038","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Janet Perea and Mav Mirfasihi appealed a summary judgment granted to Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company regarding Perea's personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Appellants claimed Progressive breached its insurance contract by failing to timely pay benefits and violated the attorney lien statute by paying a medical provider directly. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Progressive had reasonable proof for its payment delays and that Kansas law, which allows assignment of PIP benefits, applied to the insurance contract between Kansas residents.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/janet-perea-and-mav-mirfasihi-v-progressive-northwestern-insurance-compan-d86038","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85464:2023-10-10","opinionId":"ce05415d-70bc-527f-b992-502016ec5d07","slug":"roslyn-t-barnes-v-athene-annuity-life-assurance-company-fka-liberty-life-d85464","caseName":"Roslyn T. Barnes\nvs.\nAthene Annuity & Life Assurance Company f/k/a Liberty Life Insurance f/k/a Business Men's Assurance Company of America, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85464","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"Roslyn T. Barnes sued Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company for damages related to asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. Athene moved for summary judgment, asserting that workers' compensation was Barnes's exclusive remedy due to an insurance policy with enhanced mesothelioma benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment for Athene. The appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the authenticity and validity of Athene's purported workers' compensation insurance policy and remanded the case, including Barnes's motion for sanctions, for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","summary-judgment","insurance","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201873","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/roslyn-t-barnes-v-athene-annuity-life-assurance-company-fka-liberty-life-d85464","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37826:2023-09-26","opinionId":"47830ed2-14f0-57e7-b6a9-21d97ceb178b","slug":"dorothy-ross-plaintiff-respondent-v-venerable-insurance-and-annuity-co-de-d37826","caseName":"DOROTHY ROSS, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nVENERABLE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CO., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37826","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Dorothy Ross sued Venerable Insurance and Annuity Company, alleging breach of contract for failing to pay her as the named beneficiary under a Flexible Premium Deferred Annuity Contract after her husband's death. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ross, finding the contract ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, holding that the contract's plain language unambiguously stated that Venerable's payment obligations ceased upon the annuitant's death after the minimum 120 monthly payments had been made. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment for Venerable.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","insurance","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201495","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dorothy-ross-plaintiff-respondent-v-venerable-insurance-and-annuity-co-de-d37826","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85602:2023-09-12","opinionId":"148ad3d6-b1fa-5885-bab8-465aa1a1d53a","slug":"city-of-kansas-city-missouri-v-occupational-health-centers-of-the-southwe-d85602","caseName":"City of Kansas City, Missouri\nvs.\nOccupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.C., d/b/a Concentra Medical Centers","caseNumber":"WD85602","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"The City of Kansas City sought contractual indemnity from Concentra Medical Centers for costs incurred in an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Concentra, finding that the contractual indemnity provisions, as modified by Concentra's proposal and an additional insured endorsement, did not obligate Concentra to indemnify the City for liability arising from the City's own actions. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the City's liability in the underlying discrimination case stemmed solely from its own conduct, not from Concentra's actions.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","insurance","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-kansas-city-missouri-v-occupational-health-centers-of-the-southwe-d85602","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110912:2023-08-01","opinionId":"dd0b5d6d-46c8-58c8-93ba-f2371e74facf","slug":"mark-brommelhorst-and-barbara-brommelhorst-individually-and-on-behalf-of-110912","caseName":"Mark Brommelhorst and Barbara Brommelhorst, Individually and on Behalf of Gabriel Brommelhorst, Deceased, Respondents, vs. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, Appellant, and Danielle Johnson, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED110912","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-01","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mark and Barbara Brommelhorst sued Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (Auto Club) for uninsured motorist coverage and Danielle Johnson for wrongful death after Johnson struck and killed their son, Gabriel Brommelhorst. Johnson was uninsured and defaulted in the proceedings. The trial court denied Auto Club the opportunity to contest Johnson's liability and entered judgment for the Brommelhorsts. The appellate court reversed, holding that Auto Club, as a named defendant, had the right to contest Johnson's liability and was not bound by her admissions by default.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-brommelhorst-and-barbara-brommelhorst-individually-and-on-behalf-of-110912","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110612:2023-07-25","opinionId":"d7e81952-94b4-5d87-ace9-569316343a0e","slug":"sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-110612","caseName":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza, Appellants, vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110612","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza purchased property with a barn that violated zoning ordinances, and a lawsuit was pending against the sellers. They bought a title insurance policy from Alliant National Title Insurance Co., which refused to defend them in the lawsuit, claiming lack of proper notice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Alliant National, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Alliant National's actual notice of the lawsuit, through its agent, was sufficient to trigger its coverage obligations under the policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197855","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sanford-sachtleben-and-luciann-hruza-appellants-v-alliant-national-title-110612","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111064:2023-06-20","opinionId":"27fe3e42-fcaf-522f-bc63-f5bfc0ba518c","slug":"barbara-s-thomas-appellant-v-emir-ramushi-respondent-111064","caseName":"Barbara S. Thomas, Appellant, vs. Emir Ramushi, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111064","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-20","year":2023,"display_summary":"Barbara S. Thomas sued Emir Ramushi for damages after a car accident where Ramushi admitted full liability. The trial court awarded Thomas $375.45 but allowed Ramushi a credit/set-off for $3,690.50, representing a payment from Ramushi's insurer (AAA) to Thomas's insurer (Liberty Mutual) for vehicle damage. The appellate court reversed, holding that Liberty Mutual lacked authority to settle Thomas's claims without her consent, and that allowing the credit violated the collateral source rule by impermissibly relying on evidence of payments from a collateral source.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","auto-accident","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196758","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barbara-s-thomas-appellant-v-emir-ramushi-respondent-111064","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85870:2023-05-09","opinionId":"1c14bf36-987b-5735-8e49-ab3281def6e6","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-dale-j-meller-and-elaine-meller-and-ashley-farm-d85870","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., Dale J. Meller and Elaine Meller, and Ashley Farm Services, LLC\nvs.\nThe Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Judge of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85870","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"Dale and Elaine Meller sued Ashley Farm Services for negligence after the wrong herbicide was sprayed on their soybean crop, resulting in total loss. After Ashley Farm's insurer, MUSIC, denied coverage, the Mellers and Ashley Farm entered into a Covenant Not to Execute. MUSIC then moved to intervene, arguing an unconditional right under Section 537.065. The trial court granted intervention, but the appellate court made its preliminary writ of mandamus permanent, holding that Section 537.065 applies only to claims for personal injuries, bodily injuries, or death, not property damage.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195197","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-dale-j-meller-and-elaine-meller-and-ashley-farm-d85870","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37632:2023-05-01","opinionId":"80540328-c214-5baf-b2bb-9c8af868a4d8","slug":"courtney-garner-respondent-v-amco-insurance-company-appellant-d37632","caseName":"COURTNEY GARNER, Respondent\nv.\nAMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37632","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-01","year":2023,"display_summary":"Courtney Garner sued AMCO Insurance Company for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits after her son was killed in an accident with a Silverado. The Silverado's owner had a $500,000 liability policy, while Garner's AMCO policy had a UIM bodily injury limit of $50,000 per person. The trial court granted summary judgment for Garner, finding her entitled to UIM coverage. The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for AMCO, holding that the Silverado was not an \"underinsured motor vehicle\" under the unambiguous terms of the AMCO policy because its liability limit was not less than AMCO's UIM limit.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/courtney-garner-respondent-v-amco-insurance-company-appellant-d37632","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37582:2023-04-28","opinionId":"18eeb873-e628-50f6-a6ef-7ff2ec7653cb","slug":"dawn-bland-plaintiff-respondent-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-d37582","caseName":"DAWN BLAND, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nPROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37582","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Dawn Bland, an insured, sought $50,000 in uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Progressive Casualty Insurance Company after she was injured attempting to stop the carjacking of her insured vehicle. Progressive denied coverage, arguing that the car was a \"covered auto\" and thus not an \"uninsured motor vehicle\" under the policy, and that a step-down exclusion limited recovery. The trial court granted summary judgment for Bland. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's definition of \"uninsured motor vehicle\" violated Missouri public policy under § 379.203, and that the step-down exclusion did not apply to the facts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dawn-bland-plaintiff-respondent-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-d37582","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110678:2023-04-18","opinionId":"c4ab7cf1-6bd9-539b-88d9-3bbde52d51b3","slug":"jessica-stacy-and-brian-stacy-appellants-v-the-bar-plan-mutual-insurance-110678","caseName":"Jessica Stacy and Brian Stacy, Appellants, v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110678","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jessica and Bryan Stacy appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company in their tort action for bad faith failure to settle. The circuit court had found that a prior appellate decision collaterally estopped the Stacys' claim. The appellate court reversed, holding that neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel applied to bar the bad faith claim, as the prior decision did not adjudicate the issues necessary to preclude the separate tort action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194598","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessica-stacy-and-brian-stacy-appellants-v-the-bar-plan-mutual-insurance-110678","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85738:2023-02-07","opinionId":"fb9f6db3-c1cd-5e5b-a13f-b081f9e2ec58","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-the-school-district-of-kansas-city-33-v-the-hono-d85738","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., The School District of Kansas City 33\nvs. \nThe Honorable Jerri J. Zhang","caseNumber":"WD85738","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jane Doe sued the Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS) for negligence and other torts after a sexual assault occurred on school property. KCPS moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied. The appellate court issued a permanent writ of prohibition, holding that KCPS's insurance policies did not waive sovereign immunity, even if the policies failed to comply with statutory signature requirements. The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for KCPS.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","insurance","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192117","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-the-school-district-of-kansas-city-33-v-the-hono-d85738","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85260:2023-01-17","opinionId":"bbe65eba-26ce-598c-a518-a8ea4a679b01","slug":"michael-walsh-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-and-sheryl-d85260","caseName":"Michael Walsh \nvs. \nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Sheryl Craig","caseNumber":"WD85260","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-01-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Michael Walsh and Sheryl Craig appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in an equitable garnishment proceeding. Walsh had obtained a large judgment against Craig following a motor vehicle accident, and State Farm, Craig's insurer, paid its policy limit. Walsh and Craig sought additional post-judgment interest, arguing the policy required State Farm to pay interest on the full underlying judgment until satisfied. The appellate court affirmed, holding that State Farm's obligation to pay post-judgment interest terminated when it paid its liability coverage limit, and the policy language was unambiguous.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-walsh-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-and-sheryl-d85260","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99732:2023-01-10","opinionId":"6c48ad02-2b1f-547a-8295-a12a71f3b06b","slug":"mo-respondent-v-geico-general-insurance-company-and-government-employees-c99732","caseName":"M.O., Respondent, vs. GEICO General Insurance Company and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC99732","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-10","year":2023,"display_summary":"M.O. sued M.B. after contracting HPV during sexual relations in M.B.'s GEICO-insured vehicle, seeking coverage from GEICO. M.O. and M.B. entered a § 537.065 agreement and arbitrated, resulting in a $5.2 million award to M.O. GEICO filed a motion to intervene, but the circuit court confirmed the arbitration award before ruling on GEICO's motion, though it later sustained the intervention. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that GEICO had a statutory right to intervene before judgment was entered.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191589","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mo-respondent-v-geico-general-insurance-company-and-government-employees-c99732","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110331:2022-11-22","opinionId":"4b2cb975-86ff-57b9-b93b-afb511fb327e","slug":"billy-hood-appellant-v-michael-menech-vandalia-area-historical-society-an-110331","caseName":"Billy Hood, Appellant, vs. Michael Menech, Vandalia Area Historical Society and Missouri State Treasurer as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110331","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Billy Hood, an injured worker, appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying him workers' compensation benefits and ordering him to reimburse the Second Injury Fund. Hood had filed both a workers' compensation claim against his uninsured employer, Michael Menech, and a civil negligence action against Menech and the Vandalia Area Historical Society, which he settled for $53,000. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's finding that Hood's acceptance of the civil settlement constituted an election of remedies, barring him from receiving workers' compensation benefits and requiring reimbursement of funds already paid by the Second Injury Fund.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","civil-procedure","administrative-law","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billy-hood-appellant-v-michael-menech-vandalia-area-historical-society-an-110331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37193:2022-10-25","opinionId":"04917ed7-de5f-5a68-93df-dba996619e95","slug":"katherine-c-bowden-and-douglas-d-bowden-by-and-through-plaintiffs-ad-lite-d37193","caseName":"KATHERINE C. BOWDEN and DOUGLAS D. BOWDEN, by and through Plaintiffs Ad Litem, KATHERINE L. BOWDEN and DAVID BOWDEN, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nAMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY and BARTON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37193","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-25","year":2022,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs Katherine L. Bowden and David Bowden, Jr., acting as ad litem, sued American Modern Home Insurance Company and Barton Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract after a property they acquired a mortgage for was destroyed by fire. The circuit court granted summary judgment for both insurers, concluding that the Note Purchase Agreement did not assign rights to insurance proceeds. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing for summary judgment because the assignment of policy rights occurred after the loss, which is an exception to anti-assignment clauses, and thus raised a genuine issue of material fact.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190074","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/katherine-c-bowden-and-douglas-d-bowden-by-and-through-plaintiffs-ad-lite-d37193","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84881:2022-08-23","opinionId":"09f7c2f7-d0de-519d-b860-fa0b893aa268","slug":"farmers-insurance-company-inc-v-jill-mabie-et-al-d84881","caseName":"Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.\nvs. \nJill Mabie, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84881","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-08-23","year":2022,"display_summary":"Farmers Insurance Company appealed the trial court's dismissal of its amended petition for interpleader. The underlying dispute involved multiple claims against Farmers' insured arising from a car accident, where Farmers sought to resolve the distribution of its policy limits among the claimants. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Farmers had sufficiently pleaded the necessary elements for an interpleader action under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188634","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/farmers-insurance-company-inc-v-jill-mabie-et-al-d84881","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37282:2022-08-09","opinionId":"9357385f-880a-5944-b755-23fae7b2ac5b","slug":"vanessa-hartwell-plaintiff-appellant-v-american-fidelity-assurance-compan-d37282","caseName":"VANESSA HARTWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nAMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37282","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-08-09","year":2022,"display_summary":"Vanessa Hartwell appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American Fidelity Assurance Company on her breach-of-contract claim concerning a health-insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Hartwell's confinement at Saint Francis Medical Center from June 20 through July 4, 2018, constituted use of the facility as \"a place for rehabilitation,\" which would reduce her benefits. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Hartwell failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding her use of the facility for rehabilitation.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188473","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vanessa-hartwell-plaintiff-appellant-v-american-fidelity-assurance-compan-d37282","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:doc-188234:2022-07-29","opinionId":"31f215db-e82d-544c-ab02-df56fe613116","slug":"gary-chastain-and-casey-chastain-appellants-v-united-fire-casualty-compan-188234","caseName":"GARY CHASTAIN and CASEY CHASTAIN, Appellants\nvs.\nUNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and LAWRENCE PHOTO AND VIDEO, INC., Respondents","caseNumber":null,"court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Gary and Casey Chastain appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to United Fire & Casualty Company on their equitable garnishment claim, stemming from the loss of their family videos by Lawrence Photo and Video, Inc. The Chastains argued the insurance policy was ambiguous and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the loss. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the insurance policy unambiguous in requiring both \"Covered Property\" and a \"Covered Cause of Loss,\" which included a \"physical evidence\" limitation for missing property. The court also concluded that no genuine dispute of material fact existed, as the Chastains relied solely on testimonial evidence, which did not satisfy the policy's requirement for physical evidence of the loss.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gary-chastain-and-casey-chastain-appellants-v-united-fire-casualty-compan-188234","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37105:2022-07-29","opinionId":"6ea22d63-521f-5706-b4de-b3a6b8b3c1c6","slug":"mp-a-minor-by-and-through-amanda-zipfel-as-next-friend-appellant-v-trexis-d37105","caseName":"M.P., a minor, by and through AMANDA ZIPFEL, as Next Friend, Appellant\nvs.\nTREXIS ONE INS. COPR., f/k/a ALFA SPECIALTY INS. CORP., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37105","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"M.P., a minor, sought uninsured motorist coverage from Trexis One Insurance Corporation after being injured by a golf cart in a private RV park. The trial court denied relief, finding that the golf cart was designed for off-road use and the accident did not occur on a \"public road\" as defined in the policy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly applied the plain and ordinary meaning of \"public road\" and that M.P. failed to prove the accident occurred on such a road.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","auto-accident","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188233","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mp-a-minor-by-and-through-amanda-zipfel-as-next-friend-appellant-v-trexis-d37105","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84816:2022-06-28","opinionId":"c649e5ba-7719-5943-a1f4-51557bed7511","slug":"cynthia-franklin-v-lexington-insurance-company-d84816","caseName":"Cynthia Franklin\nvs. \nLexington Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84816","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-28","year":2022,"display_summary":"Cynthia Franklin sued Lexington Insurance Company for breach of contract after a storm damaged her home. Lexington accepted coverage but depreciated labor costs when calculating the actual cash value (ACV) payment, which Franklin argued was improper. The trial court found in Franklin's favor, awarding her the withheld labor depreciation. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, holding that the policy's ACV provisions applied, labor costs cannot be depreciated in an ACV payment without an express policy provision, and Franklin proved damages.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187637","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cynthia-franklin-v-lexington-insurance-company-d84816","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84631:2022-06-21","opinionId":"96be8743-9f32-5d13-935b-c1165dfd0efb","slug":"nationwide-insurance-company-of-america-v-matthew-p-six-d84631","caseName":"Nationwide Insurance Company of America \nvs. \nMatthew P. Six","caseNumber":"WD84631","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-21","year":2022,"display_summary":"Matthew Six appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Nationwide Insurance Company of America, stemming from a dispute over underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Six was injured in an accident while driving an employer-owned vehicle and received UIM payments from his employer's insurer. Nationwide denied coverage based on an \"Other Insurance\" clause in Six's personal policy. The appellate court affirmed, finding the clause unambiguous and applicable to preclude additional UIM payments from Nationwide.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nationwide-insurance-company-of-america-v-matthew-p-six-d84631","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84634:2022-06-07","opinionId":"a0151452-a7a2-53e3-981a-297853354305","slug":"sylvia-norman-v-progressive-preferred-insurance-company-d84634","caseName":"Sylvia Norman\nvs. \nProgressive Preferred Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84634","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-07","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sylvia Norman appealed a judgment in her equitable garnishment action against Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, which calculated prejudgment interest based on the policy's liability limit. This judgment followed a remand from a prior appeal. The appellate court, however, dismissed the current appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court found that the judgment was not final because other claims and parties, including a cross-claim and claims involving Amber Ralston, remained unresolved, and the trial court had not issued a Rule 74.01(b) certification of finality.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187180","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sylvia-norman-v-progressive-preferred-insurance-company-d84634","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84722:2022-06-07","opinionId":"87db0001-35e8-58d9-a381-5dd47f2b0c7e","slug":"mo-v-geico-general-insurance-company-and-government-employees-insurance-c-d84722","caseName":"M.O.\nvs. \nGeico General Insurance Company and Government Employees Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84722","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-07","year":2022,"display_summary":"M.O. sued GEICO's insured, M.B., for negligently infecting her with HPV during sexual encounters in his automobile, asserting coverage under his GEICO policy. After GEICO denied coverage, M.O. and M.B. entered a section 537.065 agreement and arbitrated, resulting in a $5.2 million award for M.O. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment, then granted GEICO's motion to intervene. GEICO appealed, arguing it was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend its interests pre-judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that neither section 537.065 nor Rule 52.12 grants intervenors the right to litigate on the merits or intervene pre-judgment, and GEICO's constitutional rights were not violated.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mo-v-geico-general-insurance-company-and-government-employees-insurance-c-d84722","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84602:2022-05-31","opinionId":"5e78a10f-086c-59f8-9f6a-48d338d0db57","slug":"josiah-wright-v-phillip-nash-and-key-insurance-company-d84602","caseName":"Josiah Wright\nvs. \nPhillip Nash and Key Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84602","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-31","year":2022,"display_summary":"Josiah Wright sued Phillip Nash and Key Insurance Company in an equitable garnishment action to collect proceeds from an automobile insurance policy after an accident. Key Insurance denied coverage, alleging the policyholder, Takesha Nash, made material misrepresentations regarding vehicle ownership, operator, and garaging location. The trial court found no material misrepresentations and entered judgment for Wright. The appellate court affirmed, deferring to the trial court's credibility findings and concluding that Key Insurance failed to prove its affirmative defense of fraudulent insurance acts.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/josiah-wright-v-phillip-nash-and-key-insurance-company-d84602","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84645:2022-05-17","opinionId":"15009cb5-1a42-53f6-a502-302e59979003","slug":"thomas-yuncker-and-christopher-gutierrez-v-dodds-logistics-llc-and-keith-d84645","caseName":"Thomas Yuncker and Christopher Gutierrez\nvs. \nDodds Logistics, LLC and Keith Dodds;\nZurich American Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84645","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-17","year":2022,"display_summary":"Zurich American Insurance Co. appealed a circuit court judgment confirming an arbitration award that found Mr. Keith Dodds and Dodds Logistics, LLC negligent and awarded damages. Zurich, a non-party to the original suit, filed a post-judgment motion to intervene and vacate the judgment, which the trial court did not rule on. The appellate court dismissed Zurich's appeal, holding that Zurich lacked standing because it was not a party when the judgment was entered, and its post-judgment motion to intervene did not confer party status or extend the trial court's jurisdiction to rule on the motion.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186875","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-yuncker-and-christopher-gutierrez-v-dodds-logistics-llc-and-keith-d84645","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84401:2022-04-05","opinionId":"a11d20d1-69fb-50f1-8f78-95953c5a4c51","slug":"estate-of-max-e-overbey-deceased-by-glenna-j-overbey-personal-representat-d84401","caseName":"Estate of Max E. Overbey, Deceased, By Glenna J. Overbey, Personal Representative, and Glenna J. Overbey\nvs. \nUniversal Underwriters Insurance Company, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84401","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-04-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Max and Glenna Overbey obtained an MMPA judgment against Chad Franklin and his dealership for fraudulent practices related to a car sales program. Unable to collect, the Overbeys pursued an equitable garnishment action against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, Franklin's insurer. The trial court found coverage under Universal's policies. On appeal, the Western District reversed, holding that Franklin's intentional and foreseeable fraudulent conduct did not constitute a covered \"occurrence\" under the insurance policies, which defined \"occurrence\" as an \"accident\" neither intended nor expected.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185873","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/estate-of-max-e-overbey-deceased-by-glenna-j-overbey-personal-representat-d84401","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84445:2022-03-29","opinionId":"54ab94bd-b426-5064-af53-2d649142855c","slug":"tracy-sykora-et-al-v-farmers-insurance-company-inc-d84445","caseName":"Tracy Sykora, et al.\nvs. \nFarmers Insurance Company, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD84445","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-03-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Tracy Sykora, et al., on a petition for equitable garnishment. The underlying dispute involved a wrongful death judgment against Joseph Surratt, whose parents held an automobile insurance policy with Farmers. The circuit court determined Farmers had a duty to defend Joseph but did not determine the amount of damages. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, finding the judgment below was not final because it determined liability without specifying damages.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tracy-sykora-et-al-v-farmers-insurance-company-inc-d84445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84331:2022-03-08","opinionId":"18385cd2-34dc-57f5-a8c4-39321f5b4282","slug":"philip-brewer-and-lori-brewer-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-d84331","caseName":"Philip Brewer and Lori Brewer\nvs. \nState Farm Fire and Casualty Company","caseNumber":"WD84331","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-03-08","year":2022,"display_summary":"Philip and Lori Brewer filed an insurance claim with State Farm for property damage to their home. When the parties disagreed on the scope of covered repairs, the Brewers sought to invoke the policy's appraisal provision and moved the circuit court to appoint an umpire. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's order, holding that the dispute concerned the scope of coverage, not merely the amount of loss, and therefore the appraisal provision was inapplicable. The court vacated the judgment and dismissed the petition for umpire appointment without prejudice.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185017","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/philip-brewer-and-lori-brewer-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-d84331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109819:2022-02-15","opinionId":"508e41a6-9972-5139-98cd-60613f56ac4d","slug":"great-west-casualty-company-appellant-v-deborah-carr-et-al-respondents-109819","caseName":"Great West Casualty Company, Appellant, vs. Deborah Carr, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109819","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-02-15","year":2022,"display_summary":"Great West Casualty Company initiated an interpleader action to distribute $1 million in insurance proceeds following a multi-vehicle accident. The circuit court dismissed Great West from the action without prejudice, prompting Great West to appeal, arguing the dismissal should have been with prejudice. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Great West failed to preserve the issue for review by not filing a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 78.07(c).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184401","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/great-west-casualty-company-appellant-v-deborah-carr-et-al-respondents-109819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37132:2022-01-18","opinionId":"1e5f6874-ee1b-559a-8168-192eadb2ad58","slug":"nancy-fisher-respondent-v-marcus-fusco-respondent-and-state-farm-mutual-a-d37132","caseName":"NANCY FISHER, Respondent\nvs.\nMARCUS FUSCO, Respondent and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE CO., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37132","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-01-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an intervenor in a tort action, appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to enforce a purported settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The appellate court dismissed State Farm's appeal, holding that State Farm lacked standing because it was not \"aggrieved\" by the trial court's ruling. The court reasoned that an insurer's obligation to pay is triggered only after the tortfeasor's liability is established, and thus, the denial of the motion to enforce had no immediate prejudicial impact on State Farm's rights or interests.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","contracts","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nancy-fisher-respondent-v-marcus-fusco-respondent-and-state-farm-mutual-a-d37132","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84129:2021-10-05","opinionId":"2e4a494a-b08b-53d6-8a7e-841bda5bee80","slug":"leslie-m-henson-individually-and-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-d84129","caseName":"Leslie M. Henson, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leslie S. Henson\nvs. \nMerob Logistics, LLC and Tedros S. Lakew;\nZurich American Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84129","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-10-05","year":2021,"display_summary":"Leslie M. Henson filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Merob Logistics, LLC and Tedros S. Lakew, later arbitrating his claims and seeking to confirm the award. Zurich American Insurance Company, an insurer for an Amazon affiliate, filed a motion to intervene. The trial court entered judgment confirming the arbitration award without ruling on Zurich's motion, leading Zurich to appeal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the judgment was not final due to the unresolved motion to intervene, and Zurich lacked standing as it was not an aggrieved party.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180955","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/leslie-m-henson-individually-and-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-d84129","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109351:2021-08-31","opinionId":"450dc1aa-b506-517c-80ee-9d91c7f54987","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-kilroy-was-here-llc-et-al-relators-v-the-honorab-109351","caseName":"State of Missouri ex rel. Kilroy Was Here, LLC, et al., Relators, vs. The Honorable Joan L. Moriarty, Circuit Judge, Twenty-Second Circuit Court of Saint Louis, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109351","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-08-31","year":2021,"display_summary":"Relators, including Kilroy Was Here, LLC, sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court quashed their subpoena duces tecum to attorney Keith Phoenix's firm, SPvG. SPvG had advised Starr Indemnity and Liability Company regarding a potential bad faith refusal to settle claim against Kilroy. The appellate court found the trial court erred in concluding the attorney-client privilege applied to all documents, as Phoenix's actions sometimes exceeded the scope of his representation of Starr, acting as de facto co-counsel for Kilroy or a claims adjuster. The court made its preliminary order in mandamus permanent, directing the trial court to set aside its order and conduct an in camera review to determine discoverability.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","evidence","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=180413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-kilroy-was-here-llc-et-al-relators-v-the-honorab-109351","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84018:2021-08-24","opinionId":"41239929-fc7e-5132-b8d0-844bda9746f6","slug":"courtney-jones-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-d84018","caseName":"Courtney Jones\nvs. \nAmerican Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.","caseNumber":"WD84018","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-08-24","year":2021,"display_summary":"Courtney Jones was injured in an auto accident with an uninsured motorist and sought additional uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under two American Family policies covering vehicles she was not driving. The trial court granted summary judgment for Jones, finding the owned-vehicle exclusion ambiguous and unenforceable. The appellate court reversed, holding that the owned-vehicle exclusion, when read with the minimum-financial-responsibility clause, unambiguously limited UM coverage for non-involved vehicles to the statutory minimum.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","auto-accident","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/courtney-jones-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-d84018","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84141:2021-08-10","opinionId":"11199205-a5bc-5c96-877c-ee4a8181029f","slug":"adrienne-siddens-v-philadelphia-indemnity-insurance-company-d84141","caseName":"Adrienne Siddens\nvs. \nPhiladelphia Indemnity Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84141","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-08-10","year":2021,"display_summary":"Adrienne Siddens, wife of a deceased employee, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (PIIC). The dispute centered on whether the Decedent qualified as a \"Named Insured\" under PIIC's policy, which would allow stacking of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage limits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Decedent was an \"occupant insured\" rather than a \"Named Insured,\" and thus, stacking of UM coverage was not permitted.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/adrienne-siddens-v-philadelphia-indemnity-insurance-company-d84141","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109008:2021-06-29","opinionId":"5f24b303-b391-56d3-8ece-88536dcabfdf","slug":"harold-barnett-respondent-v-columbia-maintenance-company-et-al-respondent-109008","caseName":"Harold Barnett, Respondent, vs. Columbia Maintenance Company, et al., Respondents, Amco Insurance Company and Depositors Insurance Company, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED109008","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-29","year":2021,"display_summary":"AMCO Insurance Company and Depositors Insurance Company appealed the circuit court's denial of their motion to intervene in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award in favor of Harold Barnett against their policyholders. The Insurers sought to contest the confirmation, arguing they had a right to intervene under Section 537.065.2 and Rule 52.12, and that their constitutional rights were violated. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Insurers' motion to intervene was untimely under Section 537.065.2 and that they lacked a direct interest for intervention under Rule 52.12(a)(2).","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harold-barnett-respondent-v-columbia-maintenance-company-et-al-respondent-109008","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109377:2021-06-29","opinionId":"52650b16-5add-5644-b516-c7ccebb795a8","slug":"annette-vogelsang-appellant-v-the-travelers-home-and-marine-insurance-com-109377","caseName":"Annette Vogelsang, Appellant, v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109377","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-29","year":2021,"display_summary":"Annette Vogelsang sought coverage under her homeowner's insurance policy from The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company for costs to remediate methamphetamine contamination in her house. Travelers denied the claim, citing policy exclusions for pollutants and costs to comply with ordinances or laws. The trial court granted summary judgment for Travelers. The appellate court affirmed, holding that methamphetamine is a \"pollutant\" under the policy and the Public Works Department's Order to Vacate constituted a requirement to clean up the contamination.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/annette-vogelsang-appellant-v-the-travelers-home-and-marine-insurance-com-109377","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83806:2021-06-15","opinionId":"8952790c-76b3-5225-9cd3-8f0b8e40cf78","slug":"melissa-a-rasmussen-v-illinois-casualty-company-d83806","caseName":"Melissa A. Rasmussen\nvs.\nIllinois Casualty Company","caseNumber":"WD83806","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-06-15","year":2021,"display_summary":"Melissa A. Rasmussen sued SRJS, Inc., d/b/a BoJo's Bar & Grill, and its employee Tyler Rivera under Missouri's Dram Shop Act after Rebecca Milner, served by Rivera, caused a head-on collision that severely injured Rasmussen. SRJS's insurer, Illinois Casualty Company (ICC), intervened and appealed the trial court's judgment, challenging discovery restrictions and the award of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that while the discovery ruling was erroneous, ICC failed to demonstrate prejudice, and punitive damages are recoverable under the Dram Shop Act.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-a-rasmussen-v-illinois-casualty-company-d83806","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109191:2021-05-25","opinionId":"95e77b17-63ec-5edd-8578-b699763ea153","slug":"james-purk-plaintiff-and-loretta-purk-respondent-v-farmers-insurance-comp-109191","caseName":"James Purk, Plaintiff, and Loretta Purk, Respondent, v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Appellant, and Christopher Wilson, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED109191","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Loretta Purk sued Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage after she and her husband were injured in an auto accident with an uninsured driver. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Mrs. Purk, finding she was entitled to $300,000 in UM coverage under three Farmers policies. The appellate court reversed, holding that the policies were not ambiguous and that an owned-vehicle exclusion limited stacked UM coverage to $150,000, comprising $100,000 from the policy covering the accident vehicle and $25,000 from each of the other two policies, consistent with Missouri's Financial Responsibility Law.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177590","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-purk-plaintiff-and-loretta-purk-respondent-v-farmers-insurance-comp-109191","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83411:2021-04-27","opinionId":"f5a0f751-b9b9-5848-9839-c7ae336f12c1","slug":"james-maloney-and-hadley-maloney-v-benchmark-insurance-company-d83411","caseName":"James Maloney and Hadley Maloney\nvs. \nBenchmark Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD83411","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-04-27","year":2021,"display_summary":"James and Hadley Maloney sued Benchmark Insurance Company for bad faith failure to settle an insurance claim within policy limits, stemming from an underlying auto accident where Benchmark's insured was found liable. Following a jury verdict for Benchmark, the Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, alleging attorney misconduct by Benchmark's counsel, including repeated violations of pretrial rulings and improper adverse inference arguments. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial because Plaintiffs waived their right to a new trial by not requesting a mistrial and failed to show prejudice.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177047","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-maloney-and-hadley-maloney-v-benchmark-insurance-company-d83411","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-176697","opinionId":"85796813-53ab-5adf-9f77-7a839cbbaf67","slug":"saint-lukes-hospital-of-kansas-city-v-benefit-management-consultants-inc-d83388","caseName":"Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City\nvs.\nBenefit Management Consultants, Inc., Carthage R-9 School District, and Gerber Life Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD83388","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-04-13","year":2021,"display_summary":"Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City sued Benefit Management Consultants, Inc., Carthage R-9 School District, and Gerber Life Insurance Company for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of Missouri's Prompt Payment Act, seeking payment for healthcare services provided to a plan member. The trial court granted summary judgments and a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that St. Luke's had standing and was an in-network provider under the plan, but its MPPA and promissory estoppel claims failed, as did its third-party beneficiary claim.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176697","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/saint-lukes-hospital-of-kansas-city-v-benefit-management-consultants-inc-d83388","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108859:2021-04-13","opinionId":"600c67e7-a868-5b43-af03-f81b5d609e66","slug":"weston-t-loveland-iii-respondent-v-gabriel-austin-respondent-and-shelter-108859","caseName":"Weston T. Loveland III, Respondent, vs. Gabriel Austin, Respondent, and Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108859","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-13","year":2021,"display_summary":"Weston Loveland sued Gabriel Austin for personal injuries. Austin's insurer, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, denied coverage and defense. Loveland and Austin then entered into a Section 537.065 agreement and submitted the claim to arbitration, resulting in an award for Loveland. Shelter sought to intervene in the subsequent confirmation proceeding and challenged the award, arguing it had a right to intervene and that the confirmation was barred by collateral estoppel or an invalid arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Shelter did not have a right to intervene and that its other arguments lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176737","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/weston-t-loveland-iii-respondent-v-gabriel-austin-respondent-and-shelter-108859","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82930:2021-04-06","opinionId":"e0d72cb1-d13d-5403-a2ba-101590d9e97f","slug":"sprint-lumber-inc-scott-laderoute-jerry-downey-sheila-higdon-jess-reynold-d82930","caseName":"Sprint Lumber, Inc., Scott Laderoute, Jerry Downey, Sheila Higdon, Jess Reynolds, and Ray Meng\nvs.\nUnion Insurance Company, Continental Western Group, LLC","caseNumber":"WD82930","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Sprint Lumber, Inc., and its employees (Sprint Lumber Parties) sued Union Insurance Company (Union) for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty after Union denied coverage and a defense in a federal lawsuit brought by a competitor. The trial court found Union had a duty to defend and indemnify, but granted summary judgment to Union on the breach of fiduciary duty claim and limited the calculation of statutory penalties and attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed Union's duty to defend and indemnify, reversed the summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and reversed the calculation of attorney fees for breach of the duty to defend, remanding for further proceedings and recalculation.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177733","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sprint-lumber-inc-scott-laderoute-jerry-downey-sheila-higdon-jess-reynold-d82930","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98650:2021-04-06","opinionId":"6f5e62bf-a32b-5b23-83cd-d4267d1ab6ce","slug":"state-ex-rel-country-mutual-insurance-company-relator-v-the-honorable-bri-c98650","caseName":"State ex rel. COUNTRY Mutual Insurance Company, Relator, vs. The Honorable Brian H. May, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98650","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Country Mutual Insurance Co. (Relator) petitioned for a writ of prohibition against Judge Brian H. May (Respondent) after its timely application for a change of judge was denied. Relator, an intervenor in a wrongful death suit, argued that upon filing its application, Respondent lost authority to take any further action in the case. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, making the preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, directing Respondent to vacate his orders and sustain the application for a change of judge.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","insurance","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176498","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-country-mutual-insurance-company-relator-v-the-honorable-bri-c98650","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83764:2021-03-16","opinionId":"d388d4aa-98d6-529d-a7a0-785593567efc","slug":"brenda-estes-as-guardian-and-next-friend-for-jane-doe-v-the-board-of-trus-d83764","caseName":"Brenda Estes, As Guardian and Next Friend for Jane Doe\nvs.\nThe Board of Trustees of The Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund In Their Official Capacities, et al","caseNumber":"WD83764","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Brenda Estes, as next friend for Jane Doe, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund (MOPERM) and its board of trustees. The trial court had found MOPERM immune from claims of bad faith failure to settle and breach of fiduciary duty based on sovereign immunity. The appellate court reversed, holding that MOPERM is not a public entity entitled to sovereign immunity and functions as a liability insurer with an implied duty to act in good faith. The court also concluded that MOPERM's enabling legislation does not prohibit Estes's claims or preclude them based on statutory payment limits.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brenda-estes-as-guardian-and-next-friend-for-jane-doe-v-the-board-of-trus-d83764","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36752:2021-03-10","opinionId":"f7d1f44d-36b6-55ec-be56-6ac93b84ab33","slug":"audrey-elaine-benedict-and-don-hank-benedict-plaintiffs-appellants-v-stat-d36752","caseName":"AUDREY ELAINE BENEDICT and DON HANK BENEDICT, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36752","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-10","year":2021,"display_summary":"Audrey Elaine Benedict and Don Hank Benedict appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The Benedicts sought to stack underinsured motorist coverage from four separate State Farm policies after an automobile accident, arguing the policies' anti-stacking language was ambiguous. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the insurance policies were not ambiguous and clearly precluded the stacking of UIM benefits.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/audrey-elaine-benedict-and-don-hank-benedict-plaintiffs-appellants-v-stat-d36752","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108758:2021-03-09","opinionId":"48c53a61-aaf2-50e3-97d1-85da60aa6895","slug":"cornerstone-mortgage-inc-respondent-v-kurt-ponzar-and-sandra-ponzar-appel-108758","caseName":"Cornerstone Mortgage Inc., Respondent, vs. Kurt Ponzar and Sandra Ponzar, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED108758","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Kurt and Sandra Ponzar appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to vacate interlocutory orders and its retroactive declaration that a 2011 disbursement order was final. The underlying dispute involved a rescinded home loan, unjust enrichment, and the disbursement of fire insurance proceeds to Cornerstone Mortgage, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate, finding that while the retroactive denomination of the order was erroneous, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on its merits regarding jurisdiction, garnishment procedures, or the effect of bankruptcy.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","insurance","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174625","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cornerstone-mortgage-inc-respondent-v-kurt-ponzar-and-sandra-ponzar-appel-108758","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83788:2021-03-09","opinionId":"54af305a-86a9-5bb5-998b-7eb7b6b44f0f","slug":"robert-morris-v-geico-casualty-company-et-al-d83788","caseName":"Robert Morris\nvs. \nGeico Casualty Company, et al","caseNumber":"WD83788","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Robert Morris sued GEICO Casualty Company for vexatious refusal to pay uninsured motorist benefits after a rear-end collision. The circuit court granted summary judgment for GEICO, finding the offending vehicle was neither an \"uninsured motor vehicle\" nor a \"hit-and-run vehicle\" as defined by the GEICO policy, and that Morris's claims were barred by the election of remedies doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the owner of the vehicle was identified and their insurer agreed to cover operator negligence, GEICO was not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage, thereby negating the vexatious refusal claim.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","auto-accident","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-morris-v-geico-casualty-company-et-al-d83788","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83345:2021-03-02","opinionId":"ca1fef6a-9f01-5308-a764-e88e7e36d89c","slug":"sylvia-norman-v-progressive-preferred-insurance-company-amber-ralston-d83345","caseName":"Sylvia Norman\nvs. \nProgressive Preferred Insurance Company,\nAmber Ralston","caseNumber":"WD83345","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Sylvia Norman's husband was killed in an automobile accident with Amber Ralston, who was insured by Progressive. Norman obtained a wrongful death judgment against Ralston, and Progressive tendered its policy limits but not all interest and costs. Norman then filed an equitable garnishment action against Progressive, alleging it failed to pay all interest and court costs owed under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to Progressive. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Progressive's conditional settlement offer did not terminate its obligation to pay prejudgment interest, but affirmed that Progressive had paid all taxed court costs and that its payment of the bodily injury limit terminated its obligation for post-judgment interest.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174180","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sylvia-norman-v-progressive-preferred-insurance-company-amber-ralston-d83345","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108712:2021-02-16","opinionId":"9be898eb-e6fa-5985-8447-750c5703599d","slug":"michael-scobee-and-linda-scobee-plaintiffsrespondents-v-lauren-norris-as-108712","caseName":"Michael Scobee and Linda Scobee, Plaintiffs/Respondents, vs. Lauren Norris, as Defendant Ad Litem for William Norris, Defendant/Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108712","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-02-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Michael and Linda Scobee sued William Norris for personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident. After Norris's death, Lauren Norris was substituted as defendant ad litem. A jury awarded $7 million, but the defendant ad litem moved to reduce the judgment to the decedent's $100,000 insurance policy limit and to amend the judgment to disallow future bad faith claims. The trial court denied both motions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Section 537.021 does not require reducing a jury award to policy limits in a tort action, and that the bad faith claim issue was not ripe for adjudication.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-scobee-and-linda-scobee-plaintiffsrespondents-v-lauren-norris-as-108712","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83723:2021-02-09","opinionId":"9bfdc2ef-fe2e-5ccc-9028-eb21e048d580","slug":"collin-m-stosberg-v-electric-insurance-company-d83723","caseName":"Collin M. Stosberg\nvs.\nElectric Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD83723","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Collin M. Stosberg, a Missouri State Highway Patrol sergeant, sought Uninsured Motorist (UM) benefits from Electric Insurance Company after being injured by an uninsured motorcyclist during a DUI checkpoint. The trial court granted summary judgment for Electric on three independent grounds: the injuries did not arise out of the use of the uninsured motor vehicle, a workers' compensation exclusion applied, and public policy precluded UM coverage. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that Stosberg's injuries did arise from the use of the motorcycle, the exclusion did not apply because Electric was not a \"third person\" for subrogation, and no public policy prevented UM coverage for law enforcement officers. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","workers-compensation","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/collin-m-stosberg-v-electric-insurance-company-d83723","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108662:2021-01-26","opinionId":"5ea1c33e-4685-5202-be9a-04198bdf2054","slug":"christine-murray-kaplan-appellant-v-nec-insurance-inc-great-northern-insu-108662","caseName":"Christine Murray-Kaplan, Appellant, vs. NEC Insurance Inc., Great Northern Insurance Company, and Joseph Bosse, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED108662","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-01-26","year":2021,"display_summary":"Christine Murray-Kaplan sued Great Northern Insurance Company (GNIC) for breach of contract, vexatious refusal, and unjust enrichment, and sued NEC Insurance, Inc. and Joseph Bosse for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, stemming from GNIC's refusal to defend her in a probate case. The trial court dismissed Kaplan's petition for failure to state a claim. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that Kaplan's petition adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract, vexatious refusal, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, and that dismissal based on policy exclusions or the statute of limitations was improper at the pleading stage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=172517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-murray-kaplan-appellant-v-nec-insurance-inc-great-northern-insu-108662","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108576:2021-01-26","opinionId":"8d7b1044-5c0b-569e-894e-f762afc64d53","slug":"jessica-stacy-and-brian-stacy-respondents-v-the-bar-plan-mutual-insurance-108576","caseName":"Jessica Stacy and Brian Stacy, Respondents, vs. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED108576","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-01-26","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jessica and Brian Stacy sued their attorney, Jeffrey Witt, for legal malpractice and subsequently entered into a Section 537.065 settlement agreement. They then sought to collect on the judgment from Witt's professional liability insurer, The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company, through an equitable garnishment action. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Stacys, finding The Bar Plan breached the policy by asserting a single-claim limit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the policy's \"related acts or omissions\" language was unambiguous, meaning the Stacys' claims constituted a single claim. The court further held that The Bar Plan did not breach the policy by asserting this limit, and Witt's unauthorized Section 537 Agreement released The Bar Plan from liability, thus entering summary judgment in favor of The Bar Plan.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=172515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jessica-stacy-and-brian-stacy-respondents-v-the-bar-plan-mutual-insurance-108576","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83363:2021-01-12","opinionId":"53958300-6c9b-5a3d-b273-53f15434408a","slug":"sheyann-geiler-et-al-v-liberty-insurance-corporation-et-al-d83363","caseName":"Sheyann Geiler, et al\nvs.\nLiberty Insurance Corporation, et al","caseNumber":"WD83363","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-01-12","year":2021,"display_summary":"Sheyann Geiler and others (Plaintiffs) filed an equitable garnishment action against Liberty Insurance Corporation to collect on an umbrella policy after a primary insurer paid its limits on a wrongful death judgment against Sharpe Holdings, Inc. Liberty appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs and Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, arguing the underlying judgment was void, its policy excluded coverage, it was denied discovery, and Starr failed its duty to defend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in any of Liberty's points.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171255","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sheyann-geiler-et-al-v-liberty-insurance-corporation-et-al-d83363","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36707:2020-12-30","opinionId":"e585a047-d85c-536d-a70f-305a7225b5f0","slug":"norman-laws-appellant-v-progressive-direct-insurance-company-respondent-d36707","caseName":"NORMAN LAWS, Appellant\nvs.\nPROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36707","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-30","year":2020,"display_summary":"Norman Laws appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his insurer, Progressive Direct Insurance Company, in a breach of contract dispute. Laws claimed Progressive offered $50,000 to settle his underinsured motorist claim, which he accepted, but Progressive asserted the offer was $25,000. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the existence and terms of the settlement offer.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/norman-laws-appellant-v-progressive-direct-insurance-company-respondent-d36707","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83564:2020-12-08","opinionId":"2d391e72-3c75-5c59-8c12-f0843fc81d29","slug":"allstate-fire-and-casualty-insurance-company-v-philip-stratman-d83564","caseName":"Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company\nvs. \nPhilip Stratman","caseNumber":"WD83564","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-12-08","year":2020,"display_summary":"Philip Stratman appealed the trial court's judgment applying Kansas law to his cross-claim against Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company for bad faith refusal to settle, and granting judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment in favor of Allstate. The appellate court reversed, holding that the insurance policy's choice-of-law provision for covered losses outside Kansas applied to Stratman's bad faith claim. The court further determined that a bad faith refusal to settle claim is a tort, requiring a Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 analysis, and found that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment under this analysis. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","contracts","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/allstate-fire-and-casualty-insurance-company-v-philip-stratman-d83564","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36655:2020-11-24","opinionId":"a1ff57de-967a-5a7a-8570-636842f37dde","slug":"troy-allen-rieth-and-alicia-rieth-plaintiffs-appellants-v-the-standard-fi-d36655","caseName":"TROY ALLEN RIETH and ALICIA RIETH, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nTHE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, and STEFAN MICHAEL DALY, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36655","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-11-24","year":2020,"display_summary":"Troy Allen Rieth was injured when an uninsured tortfeasor stole his truck, and he sought additional uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from The Standard Fire Insurance Company. The trial court ruled in favor of Standard Fire, applying an \"owned-vehicle exclusion\" because Rieth held title to the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the term \"own\" in the insurance policy's exclusion was not ambiguous, and Rieth's legal title established his ownership, making the exclusion applicable to limit his UM coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/troy-allen-rieth-and-alicia-rieth-plaintiffs-appellants-v-the-standard-fi-d36655","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36609:2020-10-28","opinionId":"4fc43188-4302-5905-854e-f697f061024b","slug":"joyce-copling-appellant-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-res-d36609","caseName":"JOYCE COPLING, Appellant\nvs.\nAMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36609","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-10-28","year":2020,"display_summary":"Joyce Copling appealed the denial of her claims for additional uninsured motorist (UM) coverage benefits from American Family Mutual Insurance Company. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle collision where Copling sought UM benefits under multiple policies, arguing that certain exclusionary provisions were ambiguous and should be construed to provide broader coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment for American Family, finding no ambiguity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy language was plain and unambiguous, thus limiting UM coverage to the amounts already paid.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=168374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joyce-copling-appellant-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-res-d36609","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83178:2020-09-29","opinionId":"64a9d562-e992-51d7-94e5-f08dc74625aa","slug":"scottsdale-insurance-company-v-maria-olivares-d83178","caseName":"Scottsdale Insurance Company\nvs. \nMaria Olivares","caseNumber":"WD83178","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Maria Olivares appealed a summary judgment ruling that limited insurance coverage for her son's death to $25,000 under an assault and/or battery exclusion in a policy issued by Scottsdale Insurance Company. Her son was shot and killed after a fight at a bar insured by Scottsdale. Olivares argued the policy terms were ambiguous and that the facts did not establish the exclusion applied. The appellate court affirmed, finding the terms unambiguous and that the admitted facts demonstrated the shooting arose from an assault and/or battery, thus upholding the limited coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scottsdale-insurance-company-v-maria-olivares-d83178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36295:2020-09-22","opinionId":"2012d1f7-54df-522e-9fbb-dc4d9189d858","slug":"farm-bureau-new-horizons-insurance-company-of-missouri-appellant-v-johnni-d36295","caseName":"FARM BUREAU NEW HORIZONS INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Appellant\nvs.\nJOHNNIE SMITH and SHARON SMITH, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36295","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-09-22","year":2020,"display_summary":"Farm Bureau New Horizons Insurance Company of Missouri appealed the trial court's order granting Johnnie and Sharon Smith's motion for a new trial. The Smiths' house and car were destroyed by fire, and Farm Bureau denied coverage, alleging arson. After a jury verdict for Farm Bureau, the trial court granted a new trial without specifying the grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's order was presumptively erroneous under Rule 84.05(c) for failing to specify grounds, and the Smiths failed to demonstrate an adequate, nondiscretionary ground to overcome this presumption.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/farm-bureau-new-horizons-insurance-company-of-missouri-appellant-v-johnni-d36295","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36561:2020-09-17","opinionId":"83e7e006-1a4e-5d62-9d2f-c418067f0254","slug":"vanessa-hartwell-appellant-v-american-fidelity-assurance-company-responde-d36561","caseName":"VANESSA HARTWELL, Appellant\nvs.\nAMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36561","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-09-17","year":2020,"display_summary":"Vanessa Hartwell appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of American Fidelity Assurance Company on her claims for breach of insurance contract and vexatious refusal to pay. Hartwell contended the insurance policy was ambiguous and that AFA failed to make a prima facie showing for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding no ambiguity in the policy but concluding that AFA failed to establish its right to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 74.04(c) and that the vexatious refusal claim was derivative.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=166293","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vanessa-hartwell-appellant-v-american-fidelity-assurance-company-responde-d36561","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83002:2020-09-15","opinionId":"c3d18777-25a7-5af6-bc27-2abd66650f06","slug":"marlon-price-and-michelle-price-v-shirley-thompson-and-young-america-insu-d83002","caseName":"Marlon Price and Michelle Price\nvs. \nShirley Thompson, \nand\nYoung America Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD83002","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Marlon and Michelle Price sued Shirley Thompson for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where Thompson's car, driven by Earnest Davis, collided with Marlon Price's motorcycle. The trial court found Thompson vicariously liable for Davis's negligence and awarded damages to both Marlon and Michelle Price. Thompson's insurer, Young America Insurance Company, intervened and appealed the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Young America had standing to appeal and that a principal/agent relationship existed between Thompson and Davis, making Thompson vicariously liable for Davis's negligence. The court also affirmed the loss of consortium award to Michelle Price.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","insurance","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marlon-price-and-michelle-price-v-shirley-thompson-and-young-america-insu-d83002","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36528:2020-08-05","opinionId":"550bc0e7-048a-5902-ba8f-b036700620ff","slug":"devan-aslin-appellant-v-shelter-mutual-insurance-co-respondent-d36528","caseName":"DEVAN ASLIN, Appellant\nv.\nSHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36528","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-08-05","year":2020,"display_summary":"Devan Aslin appealed a trial court judgment that found him excluded from underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under three policies with Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. Aslin was involved in a motorcycle accident and sought UIM coverage, but Shelter denied the claim based on an exclusion for vehicles \"owned\" by the insured. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Aslin \"owned\" the motorcycle because he held legal title to it, thereby triggering the exclusion.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=163593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/devan-aslin-appellant-v-shelter-mutual-insurance-co-respondent-d36528","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36253:2020-07-28","opinionId":"0eb9bcfa-a45f-5b02-81e0-bd241bc24e5f","slug":"george-arnold-and-kristina-arnold-plaintiffs-respondents-v-farm-bureau-to-d36253","caseName":"GEORGE ARNOLD and KRISTINA ARNOLD, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nFARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36253","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-28","year":2020,"display_summary":"George and Kristina Arnold had an automobile insurance policy with Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri that included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. After George was injured in a collision and received workers' compensation benefits, Farm Bureau declined to pay UIM benefits due to a workers' compensation offset provision in the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Arnolds, finding the offset ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the workers' compensation offset provision unambiguously reduced the UIM coverage to zero, and remanded with directions to grant Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","auto-accident","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=163194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/george-arnold-and-kristina-arnold-plaintiffs-respondents-v-farm-bureau-to-d36253","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108358:2020-06-16","opinionId":"860f0362-efee-50f6-9ef2-e6e76ff04046","slug":"john-n-parke-appellant-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-responden-108358","caseName":"John N. Parke, Appellant, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108358","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-16","year":2020,"display_summary":"John N. Parke sued Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for fraudulent misrepresentation after purchasing a vehicle that he later discovered had been involved in a major accident and was potentially a salvage vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment for Progressive, finding Parke had no private right of action under the salvage statutes and thus no duty could be imposed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a common law claim for fraudulent misrepresentation can arise from a violation of the salvage statutes, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Progressive had declared the vehicle a salvage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=159798","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-n-parke-appellant-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-responden-108358","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36424:2020-06-01","opinionId":"acfe90b7-1260-52d6-a5da-38ea7494b334","slug":"usaa-general-indemnity-company-respondent-v-ronald-c-prater-deann-rae-tho-d36424","caseName":"USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent\nvs.\nRONALD C. PRATER, DEANN RAE THOMPSON, GWENDALYN GONZALES, and LUCILLE CURTMAN, Appellants\nand\nDAKOTA BALL, by and through his Guardian ad litem, PATRICIA KECK, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36424","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-01","year":2020,"display_summary":"USAA General Indemnity Company (GIC) sought a declaratory judgment that its policy did not cover an auto accident involving Dakota Ball, who was driving a vehicle not listed on his stepmother Christiana's GIC policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for GIC, applying a \"regular use\" exclusion. Appellants argued on appeal that the exclusion was invalid under Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) because it violated minimum operator's coverage requirements. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the MVFRL's operator's policy requirements did not apply to Dakota because he was not a \"person named as insured\" under Christiana's policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","auto-accident","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=158793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/usaa-general-indemnity-company-respondent-v-ronald-c-prater-deann-rae-tho-d36424","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82865:2020-05-19","opinionId":"39323433-5fe2-5dec-8f2f-9c694f5f2a70","slug":"david-mcconnell-and-csl-investments-inc-v-west-bend-mutual-insurance-comp-d82865","caseName":"David McConnell and CS&L Investments, Inc.\nvs.\nWest Bend Mutual Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD82865","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-05-19","year":2020,"display_summary":"David McConnell and CS&L Investments, Inc., appealed the dismissal of their petition and cross-claims against West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. They sought insurance payments under a commercial lines policy issued to Vangard Security Services, Inc., following an arbitration award against CS&L for McConnell's injuries. The trial court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim, finding CS&L was not an insured under West Bend's policy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants' allegations of coverage were mere legal conclusions insufficient to establish West Bend's liability.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=157015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-mcconnell-and-csl-investments-inc-v-west-bend-mutual-insurance-comp-d82865","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36261:2020-05-12","opinionId":"9110523d-601b-5fa0-a1d6-8a180c1559f6","slug":"lana-sloan-plaintiff-appellant-v-farm-bureau-town-country-insurance-compa-d36261","caseName":"LANA SLOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nFARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent\nand\nJESSE CLARK, JOSEPH E. WEBB, and BOBBETTE J. WEBB, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD36261","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"Lana Sloan sued Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company for medical payments related to a dog bite, seeking coverage under a policy provision for bodily injury arising out of a condition on the insured premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for Farm Bureau, finding the dog was not a condition on the insured premises. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment failed to make a prima facie showing that the dog was not a condition on the insured premises.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=156495","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lana-sloan-plaintiff-appellant-v-farm-bureau-town-country-insurance-compa-d36261","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36368:2020-05-05","opinionId":"1d4a10ed-f50e-5acc-bf7e-c86926591bf5","slug":"tim-johnson-appellant-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-re-d36368","caseName":"TIM JOHNSON, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36368","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-05","year":2020,"display_summary":"Tim Johnson was involved in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist and sought uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from State Farm under three separate policies. State Farm paid the UM limit under the policy for the vehicle involved in the accident but reduced coverage on two other policies, citing an owned-vehicle exclusion. Johnson sued for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay, arguing the exclusion was inapplicable, ambiguous, and against public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the exclusion unambiguous and consistent with Missouri law and public policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","auto-accident","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=156114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tim-johnson-appellant-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-re-d36368","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107661:2020-04-07","opinionId":"6bf79d33-19e1-50eb-a7ba-151c193ed4fb","slug":"farzad-s-qureshi-respondent-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-ap-107661","caseName":"Farzad S. Qureshi, Respondent, v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED107661","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-04-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"Farzad Qureshi sued American Family Mutual Insurance Company for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits and vexatious refusal to pay after a hit-and-run accident. A jury found in favor of Qureshi on both counts, awarding UM damages, vexatious refusal damages, and attorney's fees. American Family appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for vexatious refusal and several evidentiary rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points and granted Qureshi's motion for attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=154777","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/farzad-s-qureshi-respondent-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-ap-107661","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36236:2020-03-12","opinionId":"566afb88-0ffd-53a7-a939-504ea6f5915c","slug":"keanna-p-branch-kerperien-natural-daughter-of-decedents-stephanie-kerperi-d36236","caseName":"KEANNA P. BRANCH KERPERIEN, Natural Daughter of Decedents, STEPHANIE KERPERIEN and JAMES KERPERIEN, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nCOLUMBIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MEMBER OF COLUMBIA INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD36236","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"Keanna P. Branch Kerperien filed a declaratory judgment action against Columbia Mutual Insurance Company to determine if liability coverage on an insurance policy could be \"stacked\" from four vehicles, resulting in $2,000,000 in coverage, following a wrongful death accident. The trial court granted summary judgment for Kerperien, finding the policy ambiguous and allowing stacking. The appellate court reversed, holding that the policy's language unambiguously prohibited stacking and limited liability to $500,000 per accident, directing the trial court to enter judgment for the Insurer.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151633","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/keanna-p-branch-kerperien-natural-daughter-of-decedents-stephanie-kerperi-d36236","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108090:2020-03-10","opinionId":"25202b99-da97-52a4-8bb0-d6df3e2f5f11","slug":"exotic-motors-appellant-v-zurich-american-insurance-co-respondent-108090","caseName":"Exotic Motors, Appellant, vs. Zurich American Insurance Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED108090","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-10","year":2020,"display_summary":"Exotic Motors appealed the motion court's grant of summary judgment to Zurich American Insurance Company regarding a claim under its False Pretense Coverage clause. Exotic Motors paid for a vehicle from a fraudulent seller but never received possession or legal title. Zurich denied the claim, asserting Exotic Motors never \"acquired\" the vehicle as defined by the policy. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the term \"acquire\" unambiguously requires possession and control, which Exotic Motors lacked, thus precluding coverage.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151457","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/exotic-motors-appellant-v-zurich-american-insurance-co-respondent-108090","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82461:2020-02-04","opinionId":"a31f4eae-3376-5485-9e1e-61fb08f8289a","slug":"american-family-mutual-insurance-company-v-robert-m-sharon-d82461","caseName":"American Family Mutual Insurance Company\nvs.\nRobert M. Sharon","caseNumber":"WD82461","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-02-04","year":2020,"display_summary":"Robert Sharon appealed a declaratory judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance Company, which had found no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds (the Schwenzers) against Sharon's claims of negligent misrepresentation and unlawful merchandising practices related to water damage in a home he purchased from them. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that Sharon's claim for post-sale water damage resulting from negligent misrepresentation could constitute a covered \"occurrence\" under the homeowners' policy. The court further found that the trial court erred in applying the owned-property, expected-or-intended, and contract-liability exclusions to bar coverage for this specific claim, thus establishing American Family's duty to defend.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","contracts","negligence","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149736","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/american-family-mutual-insurance-company-v-robert-m-sharon-d82461","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36151:2020-01-28","opinionId":"48716ab0-bc8b-573b-bf14-9c42c68ce744","slug":"inez-rice-plaintiff-appellant-v-shelter-mutual-insurance-company-and-john-d36151","caseName":"INEZ RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nSHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN GOLDSMITH, Defendants-Respondents\nand\nJASON LEE PRATER and JOE SHEARRER, d/b/a ALL ABOUT THE HOUSE, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD36151","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-01-28","year":2020,"display_summary":"Inez Rice sued Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and John Goldsmith (Insurers) for negligence, alleging they failed to properly address a water leak and mold in her home, leading to her illness. The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurers, finding they owed no duty to Rice independent of the insurance contract. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Insurers' statement of uncontroverted material facts failed to make a prima facie showing of a right to judgment as a matter of law, as it did not demonstrate that all of Rice's negligence allegations arose solely from the insurance policy.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=149514","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/inez-rice-plaintiff-appellant-v-shelter-mutual-insurance-company-and-john-d36151","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82569:2020-01-14","opinionId":"51bb156d-828c-5cee-85d2-f14b558315e6","slug":"tracy-lynn-sherman-v-missouri-professionals-mutual-physicians-professiona-d82569","caseName":"Tracy Lynn Sherman\nvs.\nMissouri Professionals Mutual-Physicians Professional Indemnity Association (MPM)","caseNumber":"WD82569","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-01-14","year":2020,"display_summary":"Tracy Sherman filed an equitable garnishment action against Missouri Professionals Mutual-Physicians Professional Indemnity Association (MPM) to satisfy a $500,000 medical malpractice judgment against MPM's insured, Dr. Michael Kaplan. The judgment against Dr. Kaplan arose from a section 537.065 agreement after his initial medical malpractice claim was dismissed and then refiled. The trial court found that MPM did not violate its duty to defend and was not responsible for the consent judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that MPM did not breach its duty to defend and that Dr. Kaplan's failure to notify MPM of the refiled claim and agreement prejudiced the insurer, relieving it of responsibility for the consent judgment.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=148393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tracy-lynn-sherman-v-missouri-professionals-mutual-physicians-professiona-d82569","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82090:2019-12-10","opinionId":"8b0aebcc-571d-54e8-905a-5a4bded92510","slug":"ryan-ferguson-v-st-paul-fire-and-marine-insurance-company-et-al-d82090","caseName":"Ryan Ferguson\nvs.\nSt. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, et al","caseNumber":"WD82090","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-12-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"Ryan Ferguson sued the City of Columbia and its police officers for constitutional violations and malicious prosecution, securing a large judgment. He then sought equitable garnishment against the City's insurers, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company and Travelers Indemnity Company, who denied coverage. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Ferguson, awarding equitable garnishment. On appeal, the Western District affirmed, holding that St. Paul's injury-based policy provided coverage for injuries sustained during the policy period, even if the wrongful acts occurred earlier. The court also denied Ferguson's cross-appeal regarding the interest rate due to a lack of preservation.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ryan-ferguson-v-st-paul-fire-and-marine-insurance-company-et-al-d82090","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35799:2019-11-14","opinionId":"d68fa3e3-1b73-5126-aeaa-0538d696b34b","slug":"matthew-r-mcbride-plaintiff-respondent-v-farm-bureau-town-country-insuran-d35799","caseName":"MATTHEW R. MCBRIDE, Plaintiff-Respondent\nvs.\nFARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD35799","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-14","year":2019,"display_summary":"Matthew R. McBride sought a declaratory judgment that he was an insured under his father's uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri, and that the coverages could be stacked. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of McBride, finding the policy's use of the word \"owns\" ambiguous. The appellate court reversed, holding that the term \"owns\" in the UM exclusion was not ambiguous and that McBride, as a co-owner of another vehicle, was excluded from coverage under his father's policy.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-r-mcbride-plaintiff-respondent-v-farm-bureau-town-country-insuran-d35799","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97623:2019-10-29","opinionId":"01bd72b7-2f28-5eef-9a6e-97154b651851","slug":"state-ex-rel-key-insurance-company-relator-v-the-honorable-marco-a-roldan-c97623","caseName":"State ex rel. Key Insurance Company, Relator, vs. The Honorable Marco A. Roldan, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97623","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-10-29","year":2019,"display_summary":"Key Insurance Company, a Kansas insurer, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a Missouri circuit court from exercising personal jurisdiction over it in a lawsuit alleging bad faith refusal to settle and breach of contract. The underlying dispute involved a motor vehicle collision in Missouri, where Key denied coverage for its Kansas insured's father. The Supreme Court of Missouri quashed its preliminary writ of prohibition, holding that the alleged tort of bad faith refusal to settle in Missouri established sufficient minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute and due process.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145980","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-key-insurance-company-relator-v-the-honorable-marco-a-roldan-c97623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35929:2019-09-10","opinionId":"9f90519d-d233-5b76-a112-998826d6ea8a","slug":"progressive-preferred-insurance-company-plaintiff-respondent-v-jeffrey-ma-d35929","caseName":"PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nJEFFREY MASON, Defendant-Appellant, and TERRY OZBORN and MATTHEW OZBORN, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD35929","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-10","year":2019,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Mason, an injured party, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Progressive Preferred Insurance Company in a declaratory judgment action. Mason sought an additional $50,000 in liability coverage from a Progressive automobile policy issued to Terry and Matthew Ozborn, claiming the policy provided operator's liability coverage for Terry's vehicle not involved in the accident. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's unambiguous anti-stacking language limited liability to a single payment, and the policy satisfied the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","summary-judgment","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/progressive-preferred-insurance-company-plaintiff-respondent-v-jeffrey-ma-d35929","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82266:2019-09-03","opinionId":"46c9edae-635d-52c2-b7cc-d1bcf4f41b47","slug":"richard-a-aguilar-v-geico-casualty-co-d82266","caseName":"Richard A. Aguilar\nvs.\nGeico Casualty Co.","caseNumber":"WD82266","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-09-03","year":2019,"display_summary":"GEICO Casualty Co. appealed a circuit court judgment confirming a $35-million arbitration award stemming from a catastrophic motorcycle accident. GEICO challenged the denial of its motions to intervene in the arbitration confirmation proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that GEICO's motions to intervene were untimely under section 537.065.2 and that GEICO lacked a direct interest for intervention as of right under Rule 52.12(a)(2). The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","insurance","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=143922","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-a-aguilar-v-geico-casualty-co-d82266","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:cl004029:2019-07-16","opinionId":"7a772f94-04df-5f9a-b82f-6bb513a91739","slug":"latronya-adams-appellantcross-respondent-v-certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-004029","caseName":"Latronya Adams, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Subscribing to Certificate No. L, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Plaza Banquet Center, Inc. d/b/a Lights on Broadway Plaza Grill and Eric Galloway, Appellants, and P & B Real Estate, LLC and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Respondents.","caseNumber":"CL004029","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-07-16","year":2019,"display_summary":"Latronya Adams sued Lights on Broadway and Eric Galloway for negligence after her son was fatally shot outside a nightclub, obtaining a $5,000,000 judgment. Adams then brought a garnishment action against Underwriters, Lights on Broadway's insurer, to collect on the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the garnishment court's finding that Underwriters breached its duty to defend, but reversed its determination that the claim was barred by a Classification Limitation and that Lights on Broadway was not liable. The court also reversed the summary judgment on Adams's bad faith failure to defend claim and affirmed the dismissal of a defamation cross-claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142433","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/latronya-adams-appellantcross-respondent-v-certain-underwriters-at-lloyds-004029","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82118:2019-06-25","opinionId":"1c0697d2-5a19-550d-a806-d27e49d47603","slug":"navigators-insurance-company-v-american-home-assurance-company-and-arch-i-d82118","caseName":"Navigators Insurance Company\nvs.\nAmerican Home Assurance Company and Arch Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD82118","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-06-25","year":2019,"display_summary":"Navigators Insurance Company appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to American Home Assurance Company and Arch Insurance Company regarding their duty to defend a shared insured, KAMO Electric Cooperative. KAMO faced a federal class action alleging trespass and unjust enrichment for using fiber-optic cables on landowners' easements for commercial telecommunications beyond the scope of the easements. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the underlying claims did not allege \"property damage\" under Coverage A because easements are intangible, nor \"personal and advertising injury\" under Coverage B because KAMO was not an \"owner, landlord, or lessor\" of the premises.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/navigators-insurance-company-v-american-home-assurance-company-and-arch-i-d82118","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}