345 S.W.3d 341
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Myers insured by Farm Bureau for dwelling and contents; claim denied after a May 2007 house fire.
- Farm Bureau paid dwelling limit ($64,500) but contents loss ($48,375) contested; Myers valued inventory at $68,236.86.
- Brawley, Myers's former partner with whom he shared a child, moved in and out of the home and later accused Myers of starting the fire.
- Investigation relied on Brawley’s statements and Farm Bureau’s expert; Myers’s sworn statement was not favorably received; Brawley recanted portions of her story.
- Jury found for Myers on breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay; trial court denied JNOV and new trial; judge criticized Brawley as not credible.
- Court of Appeals grants affirmance of verdict but remands for a hearing on Myers’s appeal attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying JNOV on vexatious refusal | Myers asserts evidence supports vexatious conduct. | Farm Bureau argues there was reasonable cause for denial. | No error; evidence supported vexatious refusal. |
| Whether instruction MAI 32.24 was correctly applied vs. a non-MAI form | Instruction No. 7 correctly submitted misrepresentation and prejudice. | A non-MAI instruction focusing on policy language should have been given. | Instruction No. 7 properly given; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the trial court properly excluded audio from the Hall video exhibit | Audio would support misrepresentation defense. | Audio was duplicative and prejudicially bolstering Brawley’s testimony. | No abuse of discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dhyne v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard for reviewing JNOV/directed verdict)
- D.R. Sherry Constr., Ltd. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 316 S.W.3d 899 (Mo. banc 2010) (elements of vexatious refusal to pay)
- Hensley v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 210 S.W.3d 455 (Mo.App. 2007) (evidence sufficiency for vexatious/refusal; credibility matters)
- Travelers Indent. Co. v. Woods, 663 S.W.2d 392 (Mo.App. 1983) (vexatious refusal standards)
- Laster v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 693 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. App. 1985) (suspicion without substantial facts = vexatious)
- Pool v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 311 S.W.3d 895 (Mo.App. 2010) (instructional error review: no prejudice; MAI usage)
- Greer v. Zurich Ins. Co., 441 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. 1969) (MAI 32.24 context; material breach required)
- Childers v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 799 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. App. 1990) (discussion of MAI 32.24 applicability)
- McBryde v. Ritenour School Dist., 207 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. 2006) (MAI instructions and non-MAI modification rule)
- Beaty v. St. Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City, 298 S.W.3d 554 (Mo. App. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)