Morgan v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 578
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Morgan sought equitable garnishment against State Farm to satisfy a wrongful death judgment arising from an ATV accident involving Richard Parchman Jr.
- State Farm had issued rental/homeowners policies for the relevant residences; Richard was not named in the policies.
- In the separate wrongful death action, defendant ad litem Mann represented Richard; State Farm reserved rights and later was determined not to have insured Richard for the ATV incident.
- An amended judgment in the wrongful death case was entered against Mann only, with State Farm not individually liable under the judgment.
- The garnishment action questioned whether any State Farm policies could satisfy the underlying judgment and whether post-judgment interest should be paid from those policies.
- The trial court granted State Farm summary judgment, holding policy defenses may be raised and no policy provided coverage for the ATV accident on a public road.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of policy defenses | Morgan argues State Farm waived defenses by conduct granting defense without reservation. | State Farm contends no waiver occurred; reservation of rights preserved defenses. | State Farm did not waive policy defenses. |
| Res judicata preclusion | Morgan asserts res judicata bars State Farm from raising coverage defenses. | State Farm argues four identities required for res judicata are not met; no preclusion. | Res judicata does not preclude assertion of coverage defenses. |
| Collateral estoppel preclusion | Morgan argues collateral estoppel applies to bar coverage defenses. | State Farm contends prior judgment did not resolve coverage issues; identities do not support estoppel. | Collateral estoppel does not apply; coverage defenses may be raised. |
| Post-judgment interest | Morgan seeks post-judgment interest from State Farm. | Interest issue belongs in garnishment context, not here; moot after ruling. | Point deemed moot; affirmance on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinnaman-Carson v. Westport Ins. Corp., 283 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. banc 2009) (insured insurer cannot waive coverage defenses by unconditional defense without reservation)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zumwalt, 825 S.W.2d 906 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (insurer not required to provide coverage where none exists under policy terms)
- McConnell v. Kelly, 860 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (distinguishes insurer as defendant ad litem; highlights limits on insurer's liability and role)
- Lodigensky v. American States Preferred Ins. Co., 898 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (intervention mechanics and rights when insurer not party in underlying action)
- Shahan v. Shahan, 988 S.W.2d 529 (Mo. banc 1999) (collateral estoppel factors—identity and fairness considerations)
- Whitney v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 16 S.W.3d 729 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (waiver concept and related estoppel principles in insurance defense)
- Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lackey, 907 S.W.2d 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (insurance coverage not barred by res judicata when not addressed in prior action)
- Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Stephens, 825 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (reservation of rights and waiver considerations in ad litem context)