Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant suffered extensive injuries while riding a motorcycle that was hit by a vehicle driven by Tortfeasor. Appellanat recovered $100,000 from Tortfeasor's insurance company, which left Appellant with $1.4 million in unpaid damages. Appellant sought additional recovery under the underinsured motorist coverage endorsement of the American Family policy he had purchased for the motorcycle and under the underinsured motorist coverage endorsements of each of the additional American Family insurance policies he had purchased for his two trucks. He also sought recovery as an additional insured on the American Standard policy his father maintained for a motorcycle. Both insurers denied coverage under all of these four policies. Appellant then joined both insurers as additional defendants, claiming he was entitled to $400,000 in underinsured motorist coverage under the four policies. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, holding that the policies' owned-vehicle exclusions unambiguously applied to the motorcycle he was riding at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Tortfeasor's vehicle was an underinsured motor vehicle; (2) the insurers failed to show that the owned-vehicle exclusion applied; and (3) the "other insurance" clause permitted stacking of the underinsured motorist coverage, and offset was not permitted. View "Manner v. Schiermeier" on Justia Law

Ruth Mendenhall appealed a summary judgment in favor of Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford on her equitable garnishment claim seeking insurance coverage for the death of her husband, Len Mendenhall. The trial court's judgment was premised on the conclusion that Len was an "employee" under the terms of the Hartford policy and, therefore, was excluded from coverage. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that, given the facts of this case and the policy language, Len was not an "employee" but was instead a "temporary worker" subject to coverage under the terms of the Hartford policy. View "Mendenhall v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford" on Justia Law

Insured appealed the circuit court's grant of judgment on the pleadings to Broker on Insured's claims that Broker violated a fiduciary duty of loyalty to Insured by not disclosing that Broker received contingent commissions from Insurers for directing Insured's business to them and that Broker kept all interest earned on the premiums Insured sent it between the time Broker received them and the time they were forwarded to the Insurers. In addition, Insured argued that Broker breached a duty to find it the least costly policy possible. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) brokers do not have a duty to find insureds the lowest possible cost insurance available to meet their needs; (2) Missouri law specifically authorizes a broker to receive commissions from the insurer and to deposit premiums in an account pending their payment to the insurer or refund to the insured; but (3) the trial court erred by dismissing the petition because it could not be said as a matter of law that Emerson could not recover on one or more of its claims. Remanded. View "Emerson Elec. Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos." on Justia Law

A young woman died from injuries she sustained after falling from a portable rock climbing wall at a minor league baseball game. Her parents sued the team's owner, who had an excess insurance policy with Respondent Great American Assurance Company (Great American). To protect himself from additional liability, the team owner entered into an agreement with the parents that limited collection of any judgment to the limits of both primary and excess insurance policies. The trial court entered judgment against the team owner, finding him liable, and awarded $4 million in damages. The parents then brought an equitable garnishment suit to collect against the primary and excess policies. The primary insurers settled for less than their policy limit. However, the parents entered a release of judgment for the full policy limit. The excess insurer, Great American, disputed its obligation to pay under its policy because the primary insurance limit had not been exhausted. The appellate court agreed with Great American, and denied the parents equitable garnishment. The parents appealed, arguing that the excess insurance policy did not require exhaustion before it was obligated to pay. The Supreme Court reviewed the policy and found it had no provisions requiring exhaustion. The Court reversed the appellate court on the exhaustion issue, and affirmed the lower court's decision on all other matters brought on appeal.