Dry v. United Fire & Casualty Co.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 754
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Dry obtained a judgment against Reed within the policy period in an underlying tort action.
- United Fire issued a CGL policy to Wingo Masonry; the named insured on declarations is Wingo Masonry.
- Reed, not an employee of Wingo Masonry, performed forklift maintenance for Wiggins for free and was not paid.
- Reed drove the forklift from Wiggins’ home to his own home, injuring Dry in a collision.
- Dry sought equitable garnishment under Section 379.200; the trial court ruled Reed was not an insured because he was not directed by the named insured.
- On appeal, Dry challenges the interpretation of ‘volunteer worker’ in the policy and the trial court’s direction-based analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed was an insured under the policy as a volunteer worker. | Dry contends the named insured or its agent could direct Reed's duties. | Wingo Masonry did not direct Reed; Reed was not a volunteer worker under the policy. | Reed is not an insured; no direction by the named insured. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Traders Ins. Co., 98 S.W.3d 608 (Mo.App. S.D. 2003) (standard for equitable garnishment proof)
- Peck v. Alliance Gen. Ins. Co., 998 S.W.2d 71 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) (garnishment framework for insurance coverage actions)
- Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri v. American Alt. Ins. Corp., 347 S.W.3d 525 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (no master-servant analogy; look to policy language)
- Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2010) (contract interpretation: ambiguity governs result)
- Jones v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 287 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. banc 2009) (ambiguous language standards; enforce policy terms)
- Seeck v. Geico General Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (ambiguity assessment in insurance contracts)