Great American Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 49911
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | SMITH; CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and SNYDER |
| Citation | Great American Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. App. 1986) |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 49911,49911 |
| Parties | GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PEARL PAINT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Alan E. Popkin, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
Jeffrey L. Cramer, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the trial court sustaining plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment case. The court determined that plaintiff has no duty to defend defendant in a suit against it. We affirm.
The underlying litigation involves a lawsuit by an employee of defendant, Phyllis Stoll. In Count I Stoll alleges her status asan employee, that as part of her employment arrangements it was agreed that defendant would deduct money from Stoll's pay to obtain and maintain health and hospitalization insurance for Stoll, that such amounts were deducted, that defendant failed to enroll and maintain Stoll in such insurance programs, that this failure was the product of negligence, and that as a result of defendant's negligence Stoll suffered injuries and losses. Count II incorporated the allegations of Count I except the charges of negligence and alleged that Stoll sustained injuries and damages as a result of defendant's breach of contract. Defendant is insured by plaintiff's comprehensive business liability policy. By its declaratory judgment action, plaintiff sought a declaration that no coverage was afforded under that policy for the Stoll suit.
The policy contains three provisions of consequence here:
Under Coverage C, this policy does not apply:
4. to liability assumed by the insured under any contract or agreement except a contract defined in this policy; ...
It is admitted that the employment agreement between defendant and Stoll was oral.
Defendant advances the argument that "occurrence" is broad enough to encompass contract claims and that inasmuch as the word did not carry emphasis it was used in its everyday use and not as defined in the policy. The definition utilized in the policy is that "occurrence means an accident ... which in turn is considered by Missouri courts to mean injury caused by the negligence of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
James v. Paul, Respondent, State Farm Fire
...this] to mean injury caused by the negligence of the insured.'" Wood, 980 S.W.2d at 49 (quoting Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601, 602 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986). Accordingly, under Missouri case law, an "occurrence" for purposes of State Farm's policy means "'an injury caused......
-
Dodson Int'l Parts Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg Pa.
...coverage to an “occurrence” defined as an “accident,” the term encompasses a negligence claim. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601, 602 (Mo.App. E.D.1986). Even if we accept that the undefined term “accident” includes negligence claims, this definition of accident woul......
-
Wood v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
..." 'accident' ... Missouri courts [consider this] to mean injury caused by the negligence of the insured." Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601, 602 (Mo.App. E.D.1986) (citing N.W. Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 451 S.W.2d 356 (Mo.App. In N.W. Elec. ......
-
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Sleeper
...Hampton v. Carter Enterprises, Inc., 238 S.W.3d 170, 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007); Wood, 980 S.W.2d at 48; Great American Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601, 602 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) (all interpreting an insurance policy where "occurrence" was defined as an "accident," but "accident" was......
-
Section 10.4 Coverage A—Bodily Injury and Property Damage Caused by an Occurrence
...N.W. Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 451 S.W.2d 356 (Mo. App. W.D. 1969); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986); Angelina Cas. Co. v. Pattonville-Bridgeton Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986). A breach of cont......
-
Section 10.9 Exclusion b—Contractual Liability Exclusion
...but, rather, refers to an agreement by the insured to indemnify or hold harmless a third party. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Pearl Paint Co., 703 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986); West v. Jacobs, 790 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990). Liability assumed under an “insured contract” (formerly an “incide......