Brown v. Hamilton Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | 71505,Nos. 71442,s. 71442 |
| Citation | 956 S.W.2d 417 |
| Parties | Penny L. BROWN, Plaintiff/Respondent, Cross-Appellant, v. HAMILTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant, Cross-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Hartstein & Sherman, Richard Sherman, St. Louis, for appellant.
Robert H. Pedroli, St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant, Hamilton Insurance Company, (Hamilton) appeals after judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Penny Brown. Brown claimed personal injuries from a two-car collision, and the other vehicle was uninsured. The other vehicle may have been operated by Edward Taylor. Taylor could not be located and was never a party. The contested fact in issue was whether the other vehicle was uninsured. Hamilton insured the car Brown was driving. Hamilton argues the trial court erred as follows: (1) admission of Brown's Exhibit No.3, a guilty plea by Edward Taylor in a municipal court to a charge of driving with no proof of insurance, because it contained inadmissible hearsay statements by a non-party; (2) denial of Hamilton's motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Brown failed to present substantial evidence to support a finding the other vehicle was uninsured; and, (3) submission of Brown's verdict directing instruction because it was not supported by substantial evidence that the other vehicle was uninsured or that Edward Taylor was the operator of the other vehicle. Brown cross-appealed and argues the trial court erred when it, in effect, ruled Brown's claim for vexatious refusal damages was unsupportable. The ruling was made before the trial began on the basis of undisputed facts..
This litigation involves injuries Brown sustained when the car she was driving was struck in the rear by another car. Before trial, the court granted Hamilton's motion for protective order. It prevented Brown from deposing and receiving testimony of Hamilton's insurance agent about information acquired, on or after the date of the collision. The propriety of the limitation on discovery is not an issue on appeal.
Brown and her mother testified. On June 28, 1994, a Pontiac 6000 rear-ended the car Brown was driving. The driver of the Pontiac approached Brown and asked her if she was hurt. He did not identify himself and did not show proof of insurance upon Brown's demand. The driver and Brown did not exchange any written information. Brown and the other driver drove their cars to a gas station and called the police. Brown's mother testified she arrived at the gas station after receiving a phone call from Brown. Brown's mother described the driver of the Pontiac as "a tall, black, thin man." The police officer who came to the scene and made a report was not called as a witness. Brown was unable to locate the driver of the other vehicle.
Over Hamilton's objection the court admitted Brown's Exhibit No. 3, a copy of a municipal court record of the City of Pine Lawn. It contained entries to support findings that on August 4, 1994, Edward Taylor pleaded guilty to the charge of no proof of vehicle insurance and paid, or arranged to pay, a fine.
At the close of plaintiff's case and of all the evidence, Hamilton orally moved for a directed verdict. It contended Exhibit No. 3 was inadmissible hearsay of a non-party. It disputed that ownership of the Pontiac or whether it was an uninsured vehicle was ever proven. In the alternative, it contended the exhibit would not support a finding the charge of failure to have proof of insurance involved the Brown collision. The exhibit contains no reference to June 28, 1994; to a collision; to Brown; to the ownership of the vehicle; or, the status of insurance on the vehicle. It concluded there was no evidence to support a finding Edward Taylor was the operator of an uninsured vehicle involved in a collision with Brown, and even if he was involved, there is no evidence to support a finding the vehicle was uninsured. The trial court denied Hamilton's motion.
Brown continues to argue Exhibit No. 3 would support inferences Edward Taylor was the driver of an uninsured vehicle because he pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. General Motors Corp.
...a trial court's denial of a motion for directed verdict is whether the plaintiff has made a submissible case. Brown v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 956 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Appellate authority reviews all the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the......
-
Eagle ex rel. Estate of Eagle v. Redmond
...directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether the plaintiff has made a submissible case. Brown v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 956 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Mo.App.1997). An appellate court reviews the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the jury's ......
-
Benoit v. Missouri Highway
...denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether the plaintiff made a submissible case." Brown v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 956 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Mo.App. 1997). "To make a submissible case, a plaintiff must present substantial evidence to support each element of [the] claim an......
-
Ellis v. Kerr-Mcgee Chemical
...court's denial of motions for directed verdict and jnov is whether the plaintiff has made a submissible case. Brown v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 956 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Mo. App. 1997). An appellate court reviews the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the jury's ......