Charles v. Consumers Insurance
371 S.W.3d 892
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Consumers issued a UIM policy to Charles for injuries from a September 26, 2009 accident involving Ranum.
- Ranum, the tortfeasor, was insured for liability with a policy limit of $50,000 and Charles’s damages exceeded that amount.
- Consumers initially denied UIM coverage but later advised that coverage may apply under the UIM Policy.
- Charles filed suit against Ranum seeking damages; a partial settlement limited Ranum’s liability to her policy limits, but litigation continued on liability and damages.
- Consumers moved to intervene in Charles’s liability action to contest Ranum’s liability and/or damages; the circuit court granted the intervention; subsequent discovery led to a summary-judgment-like ruling denying intervention.
- Charles obtained a judgment against Ranum for $350,000; Consumers appealed, challenging the denial of its intervention rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a UIM carrier may intervene despite an initial denial of coverage | Charles argues denial voided Consumers' interest | Consumers contends Rule 52.12(a) permits intervention if an interest may be impaired | Intervention allowed; denial does not bar rights under Rule 52.12(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nervig v. Workman, 285 S.W.3d 335 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (uninsured/underinsured carrier has absolute right to intervene)
- Beard v. Jackson, 502 S.W.2d 416 (Mo.App.1973) (insurer may intervene without conceding liability/damages)
- Frost v. White, 778 S.W.2d 670 (Mo.App. W.D.1989) (carrier has right to intervene in UM/UIM context)
- Ballmer v. Ballmer, 923 S.W.2d 365 (Mo.App. W.D.1996) (insurer may intervene as third-party claimant in certain contexts)
- Alsbach v. Bader, 616 S.W.2d 147 (Mo.App. E.D.1981) (intervention principles in UM/UIM cases)