Patrick v. Monte Owens Agency, Inc.
332 S.W.3d 917
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Patrick sued Owens, the Monte Owens Agency, Inc., and MPIP for breach of contract, reformation, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation after a fire loss claimed to be insured through MPIP.
- Owens assisted Patrick in applying to MPIP for high-risk homeowner's insurance after Allstate denied her initial application.
- MPIP denied the claim because no policy existed at the time of loss and the application had not yet been processed or issued as a policy.
- MPIP's regulatory framework requires at least 20 days from application to policy issuance and a home inspection, and limits coverage; Patrick sought coverage up to $300,000 which exceeded MPIP limits.
- Patrick filed suit March 31, 2008; the trial court later granted summary judgment to MPIP, Owens, and Agency based on admitted uncontroverted facts due to Rule 74.04(c)(2) violations by Patrick.
- The trial court warned Patrick about Rule 74.04(c)(2) compliance and ultimately entered final judgment on April 1, 2010; the Missouri Western District affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agency relationship existence between MPIP and Owens/Agency | Patrick contends genuine facts dispute agency existence. | MPIP and Owens/Agency argue no agency relationship existed. | No genuine issue; court upheld summary judgment for MPIP due to admitted facts and lack of agency link. |
| Reasonable reliance on Owens for placing insurance | Patrick argues she reasonably relied on Owens to obtain MPIP coverage. | Owens/Agency assert no reliance given non-existent policy and regulatory conditions. | No genuine issue; court upheld summary judgment for Owens and Agency due to admitted facts and failure to create triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard for summary judgment de novo review)
- Gould v. Gould, 280 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (admission of facts under Rule 74.04(c)(2) review)
- Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (mandatory Rule 84.04 briefing requirements; dismissible violations)
- Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Howard, 133 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (proper briefing on Rule 84.04(d) content requirements)