358 S.W.3d 177
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Fund provided coverage to public entities and issued a memorandum of coverage with exclusions.
- Borges and Johnson alleged the Fund's exclusions were created through improper rulemaking and could deny their claims.
- Borges sued Gerald and Johnson sued Velda in federal court for §1983 claims; Fund sent reservation of rights letters.
- Borges and Johnson filed a state declaratory judgment action against the Fund asserting lack of proper rulemaking and void exclusions.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Fund, ruling petitioners lacked standing under §536.053.
- Court held petitioners lacked standing but should have dismissed without prejudice rather than enter final summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borges and Johnson had standing under §536.150 | Borges/Johnson rely on §536.150 to challenge the Fund's decision to deny coverage. | Fund argues no adjudication or standing because no promulgated rule exists. | Lacked standing under §536.150 |
| Whether Borges and Johnson had standing under §527.010 et seq. | They have a present, legally protected interest in Fund coverage for the cities. | No ripe or directly adverse interest; third parties have no standing absent judgment against cities. | Lacked standing under declaratory judgment act |
| Whether the circuit court should have dismissed rather than granted summary judgment | If lacking standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits, so dismissal is proper. | Summary judgment was appropriate on the merits of standing. | Court should have dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard and purpose of declaratory actions)
- Columbia Sussex Corp. v. Mo. Gaming Comm'n, 197 S.W.3d 137 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (standing to challenge agency adjudication)
- Missourians for Separation of Church & State v. Robertson, 592 S.W.2d 825 (Mo.App. W.D.1979) (standing as prerequisite to judicial relief)
- St. Louis Retail Group v. Kraiberg, 343 S.W.3d 712 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (de novo review of standing; petition considered with undisputed facts)
- Carden v. Mo. Intergovernmental Risk Mgmt. Assoc., 258 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (third-party standing in insurance coverage disputes)