City of Lee's Summit v. Missouri Public Entity Risk Management, 390 S.W.3d 214

White was arrested in April 1998 on suspicion of molesting his adopted daughter after an investigation by Lee’s Summit Detective McKinley, who later married White’s ex-wife Tina.
White was tried three times; first trial in 1999 ended in conviction for sexual abuse, reversed in 2002 due to undisclosed romantic involvement between McKinley and Tina; second trial in 2004 ended without a verdict; third trial in 2005 resulted in acquittal.
In March 2005, White sued McKinley, Tina, the City, and the Chief of Police in federal court alleging numerous § 1983 claims and common law torts, including wrongful detention and conspiracy.
MOPERM issued Memoranda of Coverage to the City for two periods (2004–2005 and 2005–2006) and retroactive coverage (2001–2004); the City paid premiums and retroactive premiums totaling $220,381.
Coverage provisions defined ‘Public Officials Errors and Omissions’ and ‘Personal Injury’ with ‘occurrence’ defined as an act or event during the coverage period resulting in injury or damages, with some definition of single occurrence for continuous injuries.
On March 15, 2005, the City informed MOPERM of White’s claims; MOPERM denied coverage, stating the occurrence occurred outside the policy period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an occurrence within the policy period triggered coverage	City contends there was an occurrence during policy periods triggering defense and indemnity.	MOPERM argues the occurrence occurred outside the policy periods.	No; the occurrence to trigger coverage did not occur within the policy periods.
Whether multiple triggers apply to continuing or repeated injuries	White's injuries were ongoing; multiple triggering events should apply.	No multiple triggers; injury occurred when charges were filed and outside policy periods.	Multiple trigger not adopted for malicious prosecution/§1983 context; coverage not triggered.
Whether the underlying § 1983 claims resemble malicious prosecution for purposes of coverage	Claims are in the nature of malicious prosecution and thus trigger coverage.	Claims do not establish coverage since injury occurred outside policy period; timing governs.	Claims resemble malicious prosecution; injury occurred in 1998, outside policy periods.
Which party bears burden of proving coverage and exclusions	City bears burden to prove coverage under policy.	MOPERM bears burden to show applicability of coverage exclusions.	City must prove coverage; here, no occurrence within policy periods, so no coverage.

Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. Griffey, 306 S.W.3d 591 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (duty to defend based on potential liability; coverage determined by complaint allegations)
Truck Ins. Exch. v. Prairie Framing, LLC, 162 S.W.3d 64 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (insurer must show no possibility of coverage to avoid defense duty)
Grissom v. First Nat. Ins. Agency, 371 S.W.3d 869 (Mo.App. S.D. 2012) (occurrence policy coverage defined; injuries during policy period)
McMullin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 869 S.W.2d 862 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994) (injury accrues when first actual damage occurs; Malicious prosecution timing treatment)
City of Erie, Pa. v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 1997) (malicious prosecution/§1983 coverage considerations in asbestosis-like contexts)
Genesis Ins. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2012) (malicious prosecution-like claims and triggering considerations)
Sarsfield v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 833 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D. Mass. 2008) (malicious prosecution and related §1983 claims analyzed for coverage timing)
Continental Cas. Co. v. Med. Protective Co., 859 S.W.2d 789 (Mo.App. E.D. 1993) (apportionment of repeated negligent acts among insurers; early triggering concepts)
Sauviac v. Dobbins, 949 So.2d 513 (La. Ct. App. 2006) (exoneration as triggering date in some contexts; differs from Missouri approach)