478 S.W.3d 489
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parrnell homeowners issued two policies (2009, 2010) for a daycare at their home; M.S. attended summers 2009–2010 as a seven-year-old.
- M.S. allegedly suffered intentional, unwanted sexual contact by the Parnells’ eleven-year-old son on multiple occasions.
- M.S. asserted negligent supervision against the Parnells, claiming a duty to protect against unreasonable risks and a breach proximately causing damages.
- Parrnells sought defense and indemnity from American Family; American Family filed a declaratory judgment seeking no coverage.
- Policies exclude abuse and intentional injury; plaintiffs contend concurrent proximate cause warrants coverage despite exclusions.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for M.S., holding concurrent proximate cause applies; American Family appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the concurrent proximate cause rule applies | Parnells | American Family | Yes; rule applies to cover negligent supervision despite exclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Intermed, Inc. v. Hill, 367 S.W.3d 84 (Mo.App.2012) (injury causation distinctions in concurrent coverage analysis)
- Neal, 992 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.App.1999) (negligent supervision exception to auto-related exclusion; coverage for supervision independently valid)
- Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.3d 340 (Mo. banc 2015) (concurrent proximate cause requires independent and distinct causes)
- In re Estate of Murley, 250 S.W.3d 393 (Mo.App.2008) (auto exclusion analysis; reasoning used in supervision cases)
- Gateway Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 275 S.W.3d 268 (Mo.App.2008) (whether exclusions depend on the instrumentality or the underlying negligence)