Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. WD 63671.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Edwin H. Smith |
| Citation | 146 S.W.3d 456 |
| Parties | Dawn BRIDGES, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. WD 63671. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 2004 |
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Vernon Eugene Scoville III, J.
[146 S.W.3d 457]
Harley Kent Desselle, Independence, MO, for appellant.
Stephen D. Manz, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Before: EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., ULRICH and SPINDEN, JJ.
EDWIN H. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Dawn Bridges appeals from the summary judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the respondent, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, on her petition for vexatious refusal to pay. In her petition, she alleged that under the homeowner's policy issued to her by the respondent, it was required, but refused to pay her the replacement cost of the property she lost in a covered fire, rather than the actual cash value—the replacement cost minus depreciation.
In her sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court "erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in that there are material facts in dispute because the burden of proving depreciation is on defendant."
We dismiss the appeal for the appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04.1
On April 10, 2001, a fire occurred at the plaintiff's home in Kansas City, Missouri, resulting in extensive loss to the residence and the contents.2 At the time of the fire, the appellant's home and contents were covered by a homeowner's policy she had purchased from the respondent. The policy provided, inter alia, for payment of the replacement cost of covered personal property that was destroyed.
The appellant claimed a loss for personal property of $62,100. As to that claim, the respondent paid the appellant a total of $44,299.83, representing actual cash value of $43,945.64 and replacement cost of $299.08. In refusing to pay replacement cost for the entire claim, the respondent claimed that the policy only provided for replacement cost if the insured actually replaced the covered property and that there was no proof that she had done so.
On April 18, 2003, the appellant filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, seeking damages for vexatious refusal to pay her personal-property-loss claim. On September 15, 2003, the respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on the appellant's petition, which was granted by the trial court on December 9, 2003.
This appeal followed.
Before addressing the merits of the appellant's claims of error on appeal, we first must address the respondent's contention that the appellant's brief fails to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04. Lemay v. Hardin, 108 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Mo.App.2003). Specifically, the respondent contends that the appellant's point relied on, statement of facts, and jurisdictional statement are deficient. We agree.
The appellant's sole point on appeal states: "The court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in that there are material facts in dispute because the burden of proving depreciation
is on defendant." The appellant's point fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d), governing proper points relied on.
Rule 84.04(d) provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hervey v. Mo. Dep't of Corrs., WD72899
...on arguments that have not been made." White, 293 S.W.3d at 13 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)).Page 9 The only claim of error that was properly raised in the Point Relied On and preserved on appeal was DOC'......
-
Riley v. HEADLAND, No. SD 29716.
...Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Mo.App.2009) (quoting Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo.App.2004)). A deficient point relied on forces us "to search the argument portion of the brief or the record itself to determine and c......
-
Riley v. Headland, No. SD 29716 (Mo. App. 4/14/2010), No. SD 29716.
...Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Mo.App. 2009) (quoting Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo.App. 2004)). A deficient point relied on forces us "to search the argument portion of the brief or the record itself to determine and......
-
State ex rel. Schmitt v. Schier Co., No. SD 35829
...deficiencies alone 594 S.W.3d 253 are sufficient for us to deny each of Defendants’ points.12 Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). First, Defendants have failed to comply with Rule 84.04(d). Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) requires a point to "[s]tate con......
-
Hervey v. Mo. Dep't of Corrs., WD72899
...that have not been made." White, 293 S.W.3d at 13 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bridges v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)).Page 9 The only claim of error that was properly raised in the Point Relied On and preserved on appeal was DOC's claim ......
-
Riley v. HEADLAND, No. SD 29716.
...Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Mo.App.2009) (quoting Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo.App.2004)). A deficient point relied on forces us "to search the argument portion of the brief or the record itself to determine ......
-
Riley v. Headland, No. SD 29716 (Mo. App. 4/14/2010), No. SD 29716.
...Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Mo.App. 2009) (quoting Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo.App. 2004)). A deficient point relied on forces us "to search the argument portion of the brief or the record itself to determin......
-
State ex rel. Schmitt v. Schier Co., No. SD 35829
...deficiencies alone 594 S.W.3d 253 are sufficient for us to deny each of Defendants’ points.12 Bridges v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 146 S.W.3d 456, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). First, Defendants have failed to comply with Rule 84.04(d). Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) requires a point to "[s]tat......