356 S.W.3d 780
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Respondents own a mobile home and a 30 by 50 garage on property in Wayne County and kept these structures insured over time.
- In fall 2008 Respondents contacted Appellant through its agent Parker to obtain insurance; Parker visited the property and quote described as broad coverage with no stated exclusions.
- Respondents completed a PROTECTOR APPLICATION referencing the garage under Other Structures and paid the initial premium to bind coverage on September 8, 2008.
- Parker provided a document titled PROTECTOR ILLUSTRATION showing separate Other Structures coverage and a total annual premium, with a prominent disclaimer that this is not a binder of insurance coverage.
- After an ice storm on January 28, 2009, the garage roof collapsed; Appellant denied coverage claiming only Level One protection for Other Structures, excluding ice/snow damage.
- Respondents later received an Information Page showing Other Structures Coverage of $30,000; Respondents argued there was an oral contract binding coverage for the garage, which the trial court found and awarded $30,000 plus interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral contract to insure the garage existed | Lagermann argues Parker bound Appellant to broad coverage including the garage. | Farm Bureau contends only Level One protection was purchased for Other Structures and did not cover ice/snow damage. | Yes, an oral contract existed binding coverage for the garage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chailland v. M.F.A. Mutual Ins. Co., 375 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.1964) (five elements of an oral contract of insurance)
- Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. The Windsor Group, Inc., 103 S.W.3d 794 (Mo.App.2003) (standard of review for court-tried cases; view evidence in favored light)
- Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Woods, 88 S.W.3d 896 (Mo.App.2002) (credit to trial court’s result when reviewing for correctness)