Geisner v. Budget Rent A Car of Missouri

• Decision Date: 24 February 1998
• Docket Number: No. 72507,72507
• Citation: Geisner v. Budget Rent A Car of Missouri, 967 S.W.2d 95 (Mo. App. 1998)
• Parties: Jeffrey GEISNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant/ Respondent, and Thomas E. Hudson, Intervenor.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 95

967 S.W.2d 95

Jeffrey GEISNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party

Defendant/ Respondent, and Thomas E. Hudson, Intervenor.

No. 72507.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

Feb. 24, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied April 29, 1997.

Application for Transfer Denied

June 16, 1998.

Jerry M. Merrell, Spain, Merrell and Miller, Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

Paul Hasty, Jr., Arlen L. Tanner, Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs, Chartered, Kansas City, for respondent.

JAMES R. DOWD, Judge.

Budget Rent a Car of Missouri ("Budget") appeals from a trial court order granting State Farm Mutual Insurance Company's ("State Farm") Motion for Summary Judgment. We affirm.

The following facts are uncontroverted: Thomas Hudson and his wife rented a car from Budget. His wife, Kathleen, was an authorized driver under Budget's rental contract. The Hudsons are Kansas residents and rented the car in Kansas. Mrs. Hudson was driving the Budget vehicle in Missouri when she was involved in an accident with Jeffrey and Keith Geisner. The Geisners claimed injuries and brought suit against Mrs. Hudson. At the time of the accident, the Hudsons were insured by a policy issued by State Farm.

The Geisners reduced their claim against Mrs. Hudson to a judgment of the circuit court, but Budget refused to satisfy the judgment. The Geisners brought an action against Budget to collect the judgment. Budget in turn filed a Third Party Petition against State Farm, upon which the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

At the time of the accident, Budget was the named insured on a policy issued by Associated International Insurance Company of Los Angeles ("Associated"). Associated's policy states that anyone operating a Budget vehicle is an insured person under the policy as long as the operator has the expressed or implied permission of Budget to operate the vehicle. The policy states that the insurance provided is primary. The policy is endorsed with a self-insured retention endorsement whereby Budget retains the first $250,000 in exposure. The self-insured retention endorsement provides that Budget's self-insured retention is primary and that all of the terms and conditions of the policy apply equally to the self-insured retention. The rental contract states that there is no liability insurance coverage provided to the renter if the renter has his own coverage. The Hudson's State Farm policy provides "excess" coverage for the operation of a non-owned vehicle.

Budget argues in its first point that the trial court erred in sustaining State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment and overruling its Motion for Summary Judgment. Budget argues the trial court erred in finding that the liability coverage provided by State Farm was excess and the liability coverage provided by Budget's rental contract and the Associated policy was primary coverage. Budget contends that a comparison of the language of the competing "other insurance" clauses contained in the rental contract between Budget and Hudson establishes that Budget's "escape" clause prevails over State Farm's "excess" clause, and therefore State Farm's liability coverage applies to the loss in question.

On appeal from summary judgment, we review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was entered. Polston v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 932 S.W.2d 786, 787 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Summary judgment is appropriate if the motion and response demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Our review is de novo. Id.

Summary judgment is particularly appropriate if the issue to be decided is the construction of a contract that is unambiguous on its face. Pakmark Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 943 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Disputes arising from interpretation and application of insurance contracts are matters of law for the...