Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 03-05-2024
Case Style:
Case Number: 6:22-cv-03261
Judge: M. Douglas Harpool
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Greene County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas W. Millington - 417-883-6566
Defendant's Attorney: Springfield, Missouri insurance defense lawyer represented the Defendant.
Description: Springfield, Missouri insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued on bad faith breach of insurance contract theories.
This case was filed in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, 2231-CC00924, and was removed to federal court by the Defendant.
To prove a bad faith refusal to settle claim, the plaintiff must show the insurer reserved the exclusive right to contest or settle any claim, the insurer prohibited the insured from voluntarily assuming any liability or settling any claims without consent, and the insurer acted fraudulently or in bad faith by refusing ...
This matter broadly concerns insurance coverage for a hoop barn that sustained damage during a December 2021 windstorm at Plaintiffs' farm in Vernon County, Missouri. At the time of the storm, Plaintiffs' farm had three hoop barns altogether. Only two sustained damage, one measuring 44' x 160' and the other measuring 44' x 208'. Though the parties dispute whether Ohio Casualty or Liberty Mutual issued the check, they agree that one defendant paid for damages sustained only by the hoop barn measuring 44' x 160'. No money was paid for damage sustained by the larger structure. Defendants argue that the relevant insurance policy excluded the larger hoop barn, whereas Plaintiffs disagree.
Record evidence in this case shows significant communication among Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Specialty Risk Insurance, an insurance firm Plaintiffs refer to as their “broker.” (Doc. 54-1 at ¶ 3). Plaintiffs pursue no claim in this matter against Specialty Risk Insurance. The applicable insurance policy is identified by number FMS (22) 61 58 14 84 and covered the period between July 25, 2021 and July 25, 2022. On February 25, 2021, Samantha Athey, a Specialty Risk Insurance employee, emailed an address associated with Liberty Mutual. (Doc. 54-1 at 7). Ms. Athey's email requested a quote for adding insurance coverage for three buildings “currently under construction,” ostensibly the three hoop barns. (Doc. 54-1 at 7). The record lacks any evidence that Ms. Athey's request for a quote led to a request for coverage on any of the three hoop barns, let alone any actual coverage.
On July 9, 2021, Andrea Heffren, another Specialty Risk Insurance employee, emailed the same Liberty Mutual address seeking a quote for removing all buildings and dwellings associated with a particular portion of Plaintiffs' farm, including the area where the hoop barns were located. (Doc. 48-6). Plaintiffs contend that they lack any knowledge or understanding as to why Ms. Heffren would have inquired about removing coverage for some structures. (Doc. 54 at ¶ 14). Plaintiffs' Petition does not allege that Ms. Heffren sought to remove insurance coverage specifically against Plaintiffs' wishes or otherwise out of bad intent. Rather, Plaintiffs ostensibly suggest that Ms. Heffren simply sought this information with no prompting whatsoever from Plaintiffs themselves. (Doc. 54 at ¶ 14). Though the record lacks direct evidence showing Ms. Heffren requested an actual change to the coverage rather than only a quote for such a change, the original, unamended policy beginning July 25, 2021, lacked coverage for any barn in the part of Plaintiffs' farm where the hoop barns were located. (Doc. 48-1 at 94-288).
Finally, on August 13, 2021, Ms. Heffren again emailed the same Liberty Mutual address specifically requesting coverage beginning July 27, 2021 for a new barn built in 2021 measuring 44' x 160'. (Doc. 48-3). Ms. Heffren's email indicates that Plaintiffs use the barn for hay and machinery and that they seek $150,000 worth of coverage with a $1,000 deductible. Ms. Heffren's email makes no reference to the other two hoop barns located on Plaintiffs' farm. After Ms. Heffren's email, Plaintiffs' insurance coverage was expanded to include a “hay/machinery barn” with coverage up to $150,000 and a $1,000 deductible. (Doc. 48-1 at 75-93, 85). As Ms. Heffren requested in her August 13th email, coverage on the hoop barn began July 27, 2021. (Doc. 48-1 at 76).On January 12, 2022, after the wind damage, this coverage increased to $350,000. (Doc. 481 at 37).
Plaintiffs contest that it remains impossible to tell from record evidence whether the coverage added for the 44' x 160' hoop barn is the result of Ms. Heffren's August 13th email or Ms. Athey's February 25th email seeking a quote for adding three hoop barns. It is plain, however, that the addition of the hoop barn coverage beginning July 27, 2021 resulted from Ms. Heffren's August 13th email because the 2021-2022 policy lacked coverage for any barns, prior to the July 27, 2021 amendment to include the 44' x 160' hoop barn. Further, Ms. Heffren's August 13th email specifically asked for the addition of coverage, whereas Ms. Athey's email simply sought a quote for a change.
Plaintiffs' farm sustained damage from a storm in December 2021. Two of three hoop barns sustained damage: one measuring 44' x 160' and the other measuring 44' x 208'. Defendants paid Plaintiffs for damage associated with the smaller hoop barn, but have paid nothing for damage on the larger. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, alleging breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay, both under Missouri law, and seeking money damages and attorney's fees. Defendants thereafter removed the case to this Court.
Outcome: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike are DENIED. Summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendants. This does not bar possible future suits from Plaintiffs against Defendants and/or Specialty Risk under alternative theories of recovery that may prove consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: