Insurance Law Update
Brown & James, P.C.
|
| |
| |
|
 IN THIS ISSUE
|
|
|
|
ABOUT US
|
|
Brown & James, P.C. is a Midwest regional law firm with over 100 trial lawyers practicing in a wide variety of corporate and insurance litigation practice areas.
St. Louis, MO
Kansas City, MO
Springfield, MO
Belleville, IL
|
|
|  |
 Brown & James 2011 Insurance Law Seminar
The date has been set for our 2011 annual Insurance Law Symposium. Please mark your calendars for Jan. 27, 2011 to join us in St. Louis for the most recent issues and updates affecting Missouri and Illinois insurance law and litigation.
|
 Co-Employee Immunity Struck Down
In a complete reversal of 25 years of established law, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in Robinson v. Hooker, WD71207 (August 3, 2010), held that a co-employee was not entitled to immunity under Missouri’s Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court held that under the Tort Reform Act of 2005, the legislature did not specifically extend the immunity to co-employees and, therefore, the prior law that granted such immunity could no longer stand. Co-employees are not entitled to invoke the employer’s immunity and are not barred from suing other co-employees in tort for workplace injuries. Since this case is directly contrary to a previous Supreme Court ruling, it is likely the Missouri Supreme Court will take this case on transfer. Stay tuned! |
Insurable Interest in Missouri Defined Broadly
In Beckon, Inc vs. AMCO Ins. Co., (No. 09-2460, August 12, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held an insured had an insurable interest in a building even though the insured had no ownership interest. The insured had an oral arrangement with the owner (who also maintained such coverage) to occupy a building if the insured would pay the utilities and maintain the property. There was a fire destroying the building while the insured occupied it. Citing Missouri law that strongly favors finding an insurable interest whenever the insured could suffer a loss by destruction of the property, the Eighth Circuit held the oral agreement between the insured and the owner, and the insured’s occupancy of the building, gave the insured enough of a pecuniary interest in the building to rise to the level of an insurable interest.
There is an excellent discussion of the history and state of the law on insurable interests in this decision and we highly recommend reading it. |
Interpleader Action Does Not Satisfy Duty to Defend
In American Service Ins. Co. v. China Ocean Shipping Co., No. 1-08-1821 (Ill. Ct. App., June 16, 2010), the First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois held that an insurer cannot satisfy its duty to defend an insured by filing an interpleader action and depositing the insured’s policy limits with the court. Simply paying the money into court is not “paying its limits.” Based on the policy language, the only way an insurer may discharge the duty to defend is to pay it limits in satisfaction of a judgment or settlement agreement. |
Open & Obvious Alive and Well
Interpreting Missouri law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Pippin v. Hill-Rom Co., Inc. (No. 09 1965, August 2, 2010), affirmed summary judgment for the defendant in a premises liability claim for personal injury, holding the condition of a sloped parking lot was open and obvious as a matter of law. A load shifted in a truck while on a sloped parking lot causing injuries to the plaintiff driver. The driver knew of the sloped lot; therefore, there was no liability as a matter of law. |
No Stacking on Liability Policies
The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in O’Rourke v. Esurance Ins. Co. (E.D. 94330, August 17, 2010) , held the anti-stacking provision in an auto policy was not ambiguous and that the Missouri Financial Responsibility Law only required $25,000 in coverage even though there were multiple automobiles listed on the declarations page and premiums paid based on number of vehicles. |
Internet Service Providers Immune from Suit
In a case of first impression under Missouri law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Johnson v. Arden (No. 09-2601, August 4, 2010) , ruled that an internet web host and other internet service providers are immune from suit for libel and slander or other torts related to any content that may be published through the service or the internet, citing Section 230(c) of the Federal Communications Decency Act. |
In Other News
Believe it or Not (Hole in One)
One Saturday in August, Brown & James associate John Cooney shot a hole in one while golfing with two of our partners, Tim Wolf and Mike Maguire. John did not understand that partners are the ones who are supposed to win the round!
Quotable Quotes
Interesting quotes from a recent trial involving a funeral home's handling of a dead body tried by James Craney. The exchanges occurred during voir dire...
Q: Is anyone familiar with Cunningham Funeral Home?
A: My mother will be buried by Cunningham Funeral Home.
Q: And when will that be?
A: I hope not anytime soon.
Minister stands up during voir dire...
"I love spreading the word of God, and I couldn't sit on a jury because I believe, as a Christian, it is is immoral to sue someone."
Woman during voire dire...
"I do have strong feelings about cremation. I don't know how these children (plaintiffs) could ever burn their mother like that."
You never know what will get said in trial! |
Brown & James News
Brown & James Principals Bob Rosenthal, Larry Grebel, Dave Ellington and Mike Ward were selected for inclusion in the 2011 edition of Best Lawyers in America. Congratulations to our fine lawyers!
Tara Gibbons has been honored by the St. Louis Business Journal as a recipient of their 2010 Diverse Business Leaders Award. The award promotes diversity in race, sexual orientation and disability in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
|
Recent Trial Results
|
|
Derek MacKay held a wrongful-death judgment down to $500,000 in a case where our client had crossed over the line and crashed into the plaintiff causing severe and permanent injuries. Plaintiff would not make a demand of less than $4 million.
Brad Hansmann tried a case for a week in Dallas County, Missouri, and held the verdict to $7,000 in a difficult medical case where the plaintiff sought over $200,000 in damages.
Brad Hansmann was successful in another trial in St. Louis County in which the plaintiff was alleging back injuries and medical in excess of $40,000. Brad held the verdict to $30,000 with the plaintiff asking for $300,000 in damages.
In St. Charles County, Missouri, Irene Marusic obtained a defendant’s verdict for the firm’s client who was allegedly “drag racing” with another car, driven by a co-defendant. The co-defendant collided with another vehicle severely injuring the plaintiff. While our client obtained a defense verdict, the jury awarded $280,000 against the co-defendant.
In a declaratory judgment action, Russ Watters and Ken Goleaner obtained a summary judgment in Dent County based upon the business exclusion in a case in which a farm owner was, for profit, running an ATV park and allowing races on the weekends and charging admission. During one of the races, an accident occurred, killing one of the participants. The court held the races amounted to conducting business and, therefore, the exclusion applied.
|
|
|
|
The Insurance Law Update is a monthly publication and is offered as a service to the clients and friends of Brown & James, P.C. to provide an informal summary of cases, legislation, rulings, and other developments impacting insurance law in Missouri, Illinois, Kansas and Arkansas. We hope you find it useful. Please let us know what you would like to see in upcoming installments. We look forward to your feedback.
The Insurance Law Update does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion and is not an adequate substitute for the advice of counsel.
Click here to contact the editor
|
|
|
