Jeffrey Wunderlich v. Sharon Wunderlich
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1276
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 30, 2012 Husband was struck by a vehicle driven by Wife; Wife's vehicle was insured by National General Insurance Online, Inc. (Insurer).
- Husband demanded the $250,000 policy limit; Insurer did not respond to initial demand letters or requests for the claim file.
- Wife retained counsel and indicated potential exposure beyond policy limits; Insurer later retained counsel to defend Wife but Wife refused Insurer’s counsel and sought a § 537.065 settlement agreement.
- Insurer offered to defend without reservation and to fully indemnify beyond policy limits (an "excess protection" offer) if Wife cooperated; Wife refused and pursued an uncontested bench trial after admitting wrongdoing.
- Insurer moved to intervene as of right before trial, arguing Wife breached the policy’s cooperation clause; the trial court denied intervention, the denial was entered into a “judgment,” and Insurer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a proposed intervenor has an immediate statutory right to appeal denial of a motion to intervene as of right | Insurer: denial of intervention was appealable and should be reviewed now to protect its contractual/coverage interests | Trial court/Respondents: denial was interlocutory and not immediately appealable; appeal must wait for final judgment | Denied — under Missouri law (ConocoPhillips) there is no statutory right to an immediate appeal from denial of intervention; appellate review must await final judgment |
| Whether the trial court’s denial constituted a final, appealable judgment (or was properly certified under Rule 74.01) | Insurer: trial court later denominated its ruling a “judgment” at Insurer’s request, implying appealability | Respondents: labeling does not create appealability absent Rule 74.01(b) certification showing no just reason for delay | The denial was not a final appealable judgment; there was no Rule 74.01(b) certification, so appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Koster v. ConocoPhillips Co., 493 S.W.3d 397 (Mo. banc 2016) (would-be intervenor has no statutory right to immediate appeal from interlocutory denial of intervention)
- Fannie Mae v. Truong, 361 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. banc 2012) (right to appeal is purely statutory; appellate court must dismiss when jurisdiction lacking)
- Boeving v. Kander, 493 S.W.3d 865 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (appellate courts have sua sponte duty to determine jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Strohm v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, 869 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (earlier precedent treating denial of intervention as immediately appealable, discussed and limited by ConocoPhillips)