Rutledge v. Bough
399 S.W.3d 884
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rutledge and Cox seek equitable garnishment against National Casualty Company to satisfy a judgment arising from their wrongful-death action against Bough ($750,000 total; $250,000 each to Rutledge, Cox, and Jason Harrison).
- Thompson Capital, owner of the Cougar, allowed Bough to test-drive the car at night; Missouri accident occurred with death of Sarah Harrison.
- Bough carried a Safeco personal auto policy covering use of non-owned autos like the Cougar; Safeco paid $50,000 toward the judgment.
- NCC issued a Commercial Garage Coverage Part policy insuring Thompson Capital’s autos, including the Cougar; NCC denied coverage for Bough under its policy.
- Trial court granted NCC summary judgment, concluding Bough was not an insured under NCC’s policy because his own policy provided MVFRL minimum limits, triggering a denial of NCC coverage; Appellants appealed.
- Court reviews de novo the MVFRL and policy interpretation to determine whether MVFRL minimums must be provided by the owner’s policy and by the operator’s policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MVFRL require NCC’s owner’s policy to provide at least $25,000 per person for permissive use regardless of NCC policy terms? | Appellants (Rutledge/Cox) | NCC | Yes; MVFRL mandates $25,000 per person on the owner’s policy. |
| Must Safeco’s operator’s policy also provide MVFRL minimums for Bough’s permissive use? | Appellants | NCC/Safeco | Yes; MVFRL requires minimums under the operator’s policy as well. |
| Is NCC’s exclusion of a customer as an insured compatible with MVFRL coverage limits? | Appellants | NCC | Partially invalid: exclusion cannot deny MVFRL-mandated coverage but can limit excess coverage beyond MVFRL minimums. |
| Is there ambiguity in the term 'customer' affecting coverage herein? | Appellants | NCC | No ambiguity; definition for 'customer' under liability coverage is clear; no excess coverage provided. |
| Are the 'other insurance' clauses in NCC and Safeco mutually repugnant and dispositive? | Appellants | NCC | Moot in light of the MVFRL-based outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Karscig v. McConville, 303 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. banc 2010) (distinguishes owner vs. operator MVFRL requirements and applies MVFRL to both policies)
- Am. Standard Ins. Co. v. Hargrave, 34 S.W.3d 88 (Mo. banc 2000) (MVFRL does not limit minimum coverage to a single policy)
- Rader v. Johnson, 910 S.W.2d 280 (Mo.App. 1995) (test-drive scenario; MVFRL mandates owner’s policy coverage up to minimums)
- Halpin v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 823 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1992) (validates MVFRL approach to exclusions not affecting minimums)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zumwalt, 825 S.W.2d 906 (Mo.App. 1992) (household exclusions valid as to excess coverage; void as to MVFRL minimums)