Inman v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 347 S.W.3d 569

Valley View Estates sought a neighborhood improvement district (NID) in Monett to address recurring flooding and related improvements (paving, curbs, gutters, drains, lights).
The Inmans purchased their home in Valley View on February 20, 2004; notice for a hearing on the NID went out March 3, 2004 with hearing March 15, 2004, after which Ordinance No. 7394 approved the NID and improvements.
Construction on the NID began May 24, 2004; on August 27, 2004 the City entered the Inmans’ property to take land for a drainage ditch for public use.
August 28, 2004; a 100-year rainfall caused flooding, prompting the City to concreted the ditch floor; September 1, 2004 the City began pouring concrete on the ditch floor, which the Inmans halted.
Condemnation proceedings were initiated; March 27, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allowed completion of the drainage ditch and reserved rights for the Inmans against trespass, with explicit consent to proceed with some actions.
October 25, 2006 the City and Inmans entered a Compromise Agreement; November 1, 2006, amended petition was allowed; the trial proceeded with a bench trial awarding $451,097.50 to the Inmans; St. Paul later denied coverage and declined defense based on policy exclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying leave to file out-of-time response	Inmans contended extension implicit in stay motion; excusable neglect warrants relief	No explicit request for extension; no excusable neglect shown	No abuse; denial sustained
Whether Local Rule 2.4.2 extended time to respond, making judgment not ripe	Rule 2.4.2 + Rule 55.25(c) gave ten extra days after denial to respond	Rule 2.4.2 does not extend for a stay; ten-day rule does not apply to stay motions	Rule 2.4.2 did not enlarge time; summary judgment ripe
Whether St. Paul was entitled to summary judgment on coverage grounds	Policy potentially covers the injuries; amended petition added claims; city’s notice was adequate	Inmans’ amended petition introduced new claims; lack of notice prejudiced insurer; injuries excluded under public-use-of-property exclusion	Yes; coverage exclusion and notice prejudice justified summary judgment

Manor Square, Inc. v. Heartthrob of Kansas City, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 38 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial court rulings)
Johnson v. McCullough, 306 S.W.3d 551 (Mo. banc 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard and proper analysis)
Wingate by Carlisle v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr., 853 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. banc 1993) (clarifies abuse-of-discretion standard)
State ex rel. Wyeth v. Grady, 262 S.W.3d 216 (Mo. banc 2008) (abuse-of-discretion and appellate review framework)
Allison v. Tyson, 123 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (excusable neglect and extension mechanics under Rule 44.01(b))
Rocha v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 14 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (insurer prejudiced by failure to notify of amended pleading; cooperation consequences)
Dickman Aviation Services, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 809 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991) (notice requirements for amended pleadings affecting defense)
Poage v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 203 S.W.3d 781 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (liberal interpretation of policy; coverage requires unambiguous terms)
ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgmentstandard and evidentiary burden)
Kinnaman-Carson v. Westport Ins. Corp., 283 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. banc 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment and standard of proof)
Dunn v. Security Financial Advisors, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (local rule interpretation in Missouri appellate practice)