Renco Group, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
362 S.W.3d 472
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Renco Group, Inc., DR Acquisition Corp. (DRA) and Ira Rennert sue eight insurers for defense/indemnity under policies issued 1959–1985 to St. Joseph Lead/St. Joe Minerals for lead-related injuries and property damage.
- Doe Run Resources Corp. is the successor to St. Joseph Lead/St. Joe Minerals; DRA owns Doe Run’s common stock and Renco owns its preferred stock; Rennert is an officer/director of Doe Run, DRA, and Renco.
- The underlying actions allege injuries from lead mining operations during policy periods; plaintiffs seek coverage under respondents’ CGL, excess, and umbrella policies.
- Respondents denied coverage, reiterating that appellants are not Insureds under the policies, despite claims of successor/affiliate status.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for respondents; the Missouri Court of Appeals reverses and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- Policies are occurrence-based; disputes center on whether Doe Run and appellants qualify as Insureds under the “named insured” and related “affiliates/subsidiaries” language and executive officer/director coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Doe Run/affiliates qualify as named insured? | Renco and DRA fit as affiliates under 'named insured'. | Language limits to current/defined insureds; no coverage for successors. | Yes; appellants entitled to defense/possible coverage as affiliates of the named insured. |
| Do stockholders/directors/officers qualify as insured persons? | Renco, DRA, Rennert are stockholders/officers of Doe Run, within insured scope. | Insureds limited to specified individuals; not broadened by corporate relations. | Yes; executive officers/directors/stockholders acting within duties are insured. |
| Did the anti-assignment clause or 1994 sale affect coverage? | Anti-assignment provisions do not bar coverage since Doe Run is the named insured; sale provisions not applicable to legacy policies. | Clauses preclude assignment/limit to new risks; 1994 sale terminated or altered coverages. | Summary judgment improper; issues unresolved; remand for defense/coverage determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Truck Ins. Exchange v. Prairie Framing, LLC, 162 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (duty to defend broader than indemnity; potential coverage triggers defense obligation)
- McCormack Baron Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. banc 1999) (duty to defend when allegations potentially within policy; defense obligation exists)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Community Ass'n, 141 Cal. App. 4th 1117 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (occurrence-based vs. claims-made coverage; construction of policy language)
- Butters v. City of Independence, 513 S.W.2d 418 (Mo. banc 1974) (duty to defend based on potentially covered claims)
- Zipkin v. Freeman, 436 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. banc 1968) (contract interpretation principles)