American Family Mutual Insurance v. Coke
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1350
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellants (Coke & Ferrell) owned an insured RV that rolled down an embankment in Nov. 2008 and was a total loss; they submitted a proof of loss but insurer (American Family) denied payment and sought declaratory judgment that the policy was void for concealment/misrepresentation with intent to defraud.
- Two trials occurred: the first resulted in a directed verdict for AmFam and was reversed on appeal; the case was retried in 2012 before a jury which found for AmFam; post-trial JNOV/new-trial motions were denied and this appeal followed.
- Key factual evidence: Appellants sought to increase the RV insured value shortly before the loss; Appellants had financial difficulties; Coke testified she put the RV in neutral and thought she set the parking brake before exiting; independent investigators (Sonne and Appellants’ own consultant) found brakes and transmission functioning and concluded the RV could only have rolled if in drive with the parking brake off.
- Appellants offered expert Billy Woodring to testify on Allison transmission causation and to rebut Sonne’s report; the trial court excluded Woodring’s causation testimony as barred by the law of the case and also denied him as a rebuttal witness.
- The jury received Instruction No. 7 (based on MAI 32.24) allowing a verdict for AmFam if Appellants concealed or misrepresented material facts with intent to defraud and AmFam was prejudiced; the jury returned verdict for AmFam, and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellants) | Defendant's Argument (AmFam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of expert Woodring’s causation testimony | Exclusion was error; Woodring was qualified to opine on Allison transmissions and causation | Woodring lacked foundation (did not inspect RV or conduct new investigation); prior trial ruling barred relitigation (law of the case) | Affirmed — exclusion proper under law of the case; no abuse of discretion in barring causation testimony |
| 2. Exclusion of Woodring as rebuttal witness to impeach Sonne | Rebuttal testimony on insufficiency of Sonne’s report should be allowed; prejudice resulted from exclusion | Woodring’s alleged rebuttal lacked personal knowledge of this RV, added nothing beyond cross-examination, and appellant had opportunity to impeach Sonne already | Affirmed — even if exclusion was erroneous, no prejudice; cross-examination and other evidence already challenged Sonne’s report |
| 3. Submission of Instruction No. 7 (material misrepresentation defense) | Instruction was defective because it did not identify specific "material facts" allegedly concealed/misrepresented | Instruction tracks MAI 32.24 and the policy language; MAI/Rule 70.02 forbids requiring detailed evidentiary findings in instruction | Affirmed — Instruction No. 7 properly followed MAI and was not prejudicially misleading |
| 4. Denial of JNOV (sufficiency of evidence to prove concealment/intent to defraud) | AmFam failed to present more than speculation that Appellants concealed/misrepresented material facts with intent to defraud | Evidence allowed reasonable inferences: attempts to increase/guarantee stated value shortly before loss, financial distress, investigators’ conclusions that RV was in drive with parking brake off | Affirmed — viewed favorably to jury, substantial evidence supported verdict; JNOV denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012) (standard for reviewing JNOV/directed verdict; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Leiendecker, 962 S.W.2d 446 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998) (burden to prove coverage rests on party seeking recovery)
- Nichols v. Preferred Risk Group, 44 S.W.3d 886 (Mo.App.S.D. 2001) (insurer bears burden to prove policy exclusion or forfeiture defenses)
- Walton v. City of Berkeley, 223 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2007) (law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues decided on appeal)
- Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy, 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)