Truman Bank v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 872
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Truman Bank sues New Hampshire Insurance Co. and Maritime General Agency for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay after insurer failed to name bank as loss payee on checks for marina storm damage.
- In November 2006 the marina owner pledged the marina as security for a loan; the bank sought loss-payee status on policy proceeds.
- Around December 1, 2006, the marina suffered storm damage; insurer paid three checks to the marina but did not name the bank as loss payee.
- The marina owner repaired the marina; checks were issued through April 2007; by October 2007 the bank complained and demanded payment to the bank, but the owner had already been paid and the loan paid off when the marina was sold in November 2007.
- A jury eventually found in favor of the insurer on both breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay; the bank challenges evidentiary and instructional rulings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-payment evidence | Bank argues post-payment events are irrelevant to damages. | Insurer argues such evidence is relevant to prove damages or lack thereof. | No abuse of discretion; post-payment evidence properly admitted. |
| Jury instruction on damages | Bank contends MAI instruction misdirected by assuming damages pre-existed. | Insurer argues instruction correctly required proof of damages before verdict. | Instruction proper; did not misdirect the jury. |
| Impact of partial summary judgment on damages | Bank claims Judge Dierker’s partial summary judgment resolved damages. | Insurer asserts damages remained a jury issue; partial summary judgment was interlocutory. | No error; partial summary judgment was interlocutory and did not preclude jury determination of damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Louis County Nat’l Bank v. Maryland Cas. Co., 564 S.W.2d 920 (Mo.App.St.L.1978) (the policy proceeds vest pro tanto in the loss payee but subsequent events may affect rights)
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Windsor Group, Inc., 2 S.W.3d 836 (Mo.App.E.D.1999) (third-party beneficiary can sue for breach of contract)
- Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (elements of a breach-of-contract action)
- Stotts v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 118 S.W.3d 655 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (interlocutory nature of partial summary judgments; revisitable before final judgment)
- Norwine v. Norwine, 75 S.W.3d 340 (Mo.App.S.D.2002) (interlocutory judgment concept; court may revise rulings before final judgment)
- Gallagher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 238 S.W.3d 157 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (trial court evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion)