JOSEPH G. FARIES v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a/k/a USAA, Defendant-Respondent
SD36884
| Mo. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- In 2014 Faries bought from Spray Foam Systems of Georgia (SFSG) a completed spray-foam package whose hull was a Horton Hauler trailer; SFSG assembled and permanently bolted spray-foam equipment to the trailer; none of that equipment was manufactured by Horton.
- The combined unit (the trailer with permanently mounted spray equipment) was listed on Faries’s USAA declarations as Vehicle 14 (described as a 2014 Horton V) and insured under Part D (physical damage) for comprehensive and collision; the spray system was not separately listed.
- Faries paid a distinct premium for that vehicle’s Part D coverage; a small livestock trailer on the same policy had a minimal premium, supporting that USAA was insuring the spray-foam vehicle as listed.
- The spray-foam trailer was damaged by fire in 2016; Faries submitted a claim for the full vehicle loss under Part D.
- USAA moved for partial summary judgment, asserting the spray-foam equipment was "custom equipment" (not "original manufacturer equipment") and thus excluded from full Part D coverage; the trial court granted USAA partial summary judgment and later entered an amended judgment on damages.
- The appellate court reversed: it held the spray-foam package should be treated like original manufacturer-installed components/options of a listed vehicle and remanded for assessment of damages under the policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spray-foam equipment permanently mounted by SFSG to the Horton trailer is "original manufacturer equipment" under Part D (so not treated as "custom equipment"). | Faries: the purchased package was a single completed vehicle; SFSG was the vehicle's manufacturer for that finished unit and the equipment is part of the covered vehicle listed on the Declarations. | USAA: the spray-foam system was not manufactured by Horton and thus constitutes "custom equipment" permanently installed and subject to the custom equipment limits/exclusions. | Court: Reversed trial court — the spray-foam package is treated as original manufacturer/component equipment of the listed vehicle and not as excluded custom equipment. |
| Whether the policy’s definition of "your covered auto" and the Declarations support coverage of the entire assembled vehicle (including permanently mounted equipment). | Faries: the Declarations list the vehicle as a Horton trailer but intended to cover the complete assembled unit; premium charged supports that interpretation. | USAA: listing the trailer model and VIN does not mean separately manufactured, permanently mounted equipment is original manufacturer equipment; such equipment falls under the custom equipment definition. | Court: The Declarations and premium allocation support that the assembled unit was insured as Vehicle 14; policy language construed in ordinary purchaser terms favors coverage of the assembled vehicle. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given disputed factual assertions (e.g., alleged phone representations). | Faries: did not litigate estoppel or misrepresentation on appeal; presented the case as a legal interpretation matter. | USAA: objected to hearsay and other factual assertions that could preclude summary judgment. | Court: Declined to treat the disputed factual assertions as controlling because appeal presented purely legal contract-interpretation issues; resolved coverage question as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (insurance-policy terms construed as ordinary purchaser would understand; ambiguities resolved for insured)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid–Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard)
- Martin v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 996 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. banc 1999) (policy interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. banc 1999) (same rule on de novo review of policy interpretation)
- Long v. Shelter Ins. Cos., 351 S.W.3d 692 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (courts look to the insurance contract as a whole to determine coverage)
- Wasson v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 358 S.W.3d 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (use definitions and plain meaning when policy terms are undefined)
- Warden v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 480 S.W.3d 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (policy interpretation follows insured’s reasonable expectations)