Sauvain v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co., 339 S.W.3d 555

This is an equitable garnishment action to pursue an insurance policy coverage for an automobile collision in which Bowman, Jr. was negligent and Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against him.
Plaintiffs previously settled with Bowman, Jr. and his insurer USAA for a portion of the underlying judgment, seeking to apply a separate Acceptance garage policy to satisfy the judgment.
Acceptance insured USA Cars, Inc., owner of the Contour involved in the collision, under a garage policy covering autos owned by USA Cars.
Plaintiffs contend Bowman, Jr. possessed the Contour at the time of the crash and that USA Cars owned it on the date of the accident, making the policy potentially coverage-triggering.
The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment, determining Bowman, Jr. was covered under the policy; Acceptance appeals and argues the vehicle was not owned by USA Cars at the time of the collision.
Missouri follows a conflict-of-laws approach with Texas substantive law governing contract issues; however, Missouri analyzes summary judgment standards, while Texas law informs ownership transfer for insurance purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Estoppel/waiver bar to a new coverage defense	Plaintiffs argue Acceptance is estopped from relying on ownership grounds not raised in denial.	Acceptance argues Brown and related control prevent estoppel; denial letters fairly narrowed defenses and did not prejudice.	Estoppel not applicable; Summary judgment reversed on estoppel ground.
Whether policy covered Bowman, Jr. on the date of the accident	Plaintiffs contend ownership transfer facts show USA Cars owned the Contour; thus policy covers Bowman, Jr.	Acceptance contends ownership resided in USA Cars under Gulf/Bobo and related Texas tests; intent to transfer controls coverage; dispute exists.	There was a triable issue as to ownership transfer under Texas standards; reversal of summary judgment on this ground.

Brown v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 776 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. banc 1989) (denial ground must be specific; estoppel notion requires prejudice)
Burns Nat. Lock Installation Co., Inc. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 61 S.W.3d 262 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (denial letter consistency and prejudice considerations in estoppel analysis)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Bobo, 595 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. 1980) (ownership for insurance purposes hinges on possession and control after agreement)
Tyler Car & Truck Center v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1999) (right to possession and control determines ownership for insurance purposes)
Stone v. Waters, 483 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. App. 1972) (estoppel/waiver considerations in insurance coverage context)
Carroll v. Missouri Intergovernmental Risk Management Ass'n, 181 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (injured party stands in insured's shoes in equitable garnishment)
Accurso v. Amco Ins. Co., 295 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (choice-of-law and insurance contract principles)