Grissom v. First National Insurance Agency
371 S.W.3d 869
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Grissom garnished GICA to satisfy a Missouri MHRA judgment against Welker under a GICA insurance policy.
- Policy A (2006-07) and Policy B (2007-08) were claims-made, with notice requirements tied to policy periods; both named insured Tri-Star and officers like Welker were insured.
- Grissom’s MHRA claims arose from Welker’s alleged sexual harassment and wrongful discharge beginning in 2005–2006.
- Welker received MCHR/EEOC notices in 2006; he did not report Grissom’s claims to GICA when renewing Policy B.
- GICA denied coverage under Policy B (claims-made) because Grissom’s claims predated Policy B and were not reported within the required period; Policy A would not cover due to late reporting.
- Trial Court granted Grissom summary judgment, holding the 2006 MCHR/EEOC notices did not constitute a “claim”; the court awarded garnishment proceeds and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2006 MCHR/EEOC notices constitute a 'claim' under Policy B. | Grissom argues notices are claims per policy definition including administrative proceedings. | GICA argues Welker had knowledge pre-policy and failed to report, thus no reportable claim. | No coverage; notices constituted a claim and were not timely reported. |
| Whether Welker’s pre-policy knowledge bars coverage under the condition precedent. | Grissom contends retroactive date covers pre-policy acts. | Welker knew of Grissom’s potential claim and could have anticipated a claim; not timely reported. | Pre-policy knowledge defeats coverage; condition precedent not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wittner v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 969 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. banc 1998) (claims-made policies require notice during the policy period; pre-policy knowledge defeats coverage)
- Diehl v. O'Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. banc 2003) (administrative proceedings (MCHR/EEOC) count as a ‘claim’ triggering coverage even without damages yet awarded)
- Landry v. Intermed Ins. Co., 292 S.W.3d 352 (Mo. App. 2009) (notice within policy period is essential; claims-made policy requires timely notice)
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Maxwell, 799 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. App. 1990) (retroactive date covers acts pre-dating policy only for employment-practice claims; scope is limited)