Henges Mfg. v. Amerisure Insurance Company
| Citation | 5 S.W.3d 544 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) . Henges Manufacturing, LLC, Kevin O'Meara, Ken Vortherms and Mark Ossness, Appellants, v. Amerisure Insurance Company, Respondent. Case Number: 75334 & 75557 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Decision Date | 07 September 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford
Counsel for Appellant: Michael E. Kaemmerer, Robert Miller and Brian E. McGovern
Counsel for Respondent: John A. Michener
Opinion Summary: Plaintiffs appeal summary judgment in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company on plaintiffs' petition seeking a declaration that Amerisure was obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiffs sued in a federal lawsuit.
AFFIRMED.
Division Four holds: The summary judgment facts support the court's finding that the federal lawsuit failed to state a cause of action for advertising injury within the meaning of the advertising injury coverage in the commercial liability policy Amerisure issued to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Henges Manufacturing, LLC, Kevin O'Meara, Ken Vortherms and Mark Ossness (Henges) appeal summary judgment in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure) on its petition for declaratory judgment.1 We review summary judgment on a pure issue of law essentially de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-American Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). The petition sought a declaration that Amerisure was obligated to defend Henges in a federal court lawsuit brought against Henges by Prest Rack, Inc. (Prest) and that it was obligated to indemnify Henges for damages, if any, resulting from the Prest lawsuit. Amerisure filed a motion for summary judgment. It alleged Prest's complaint in the federal court did not state a cause of action for advertising injury within the meaning of the advertising injury coverage in the commercial liability policy it issued to Henges. In the alternative, it alleged Henges was not entitled to a judgment declaring coverage because, as a matter of law, Prest's alleged advertising injury arose out of a breach of contract, conduct excluded from coverage. The federal court lawsuit filed by Prest is also the basis of an appeal pending in this court in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Vortherms, et al., ED#75560. The background and operative facts are the same for both cases. The legal issue of coverage for advertising injury in a commercial liability policy is the same. The terms of the policies considered in Am. States Ins. Co. and the present appeal are identical. Accordingly, we adopt the relevant portion of the facts and law in Am. States Ins. Co., which will be published on the same date as this opinion. We conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment by declaring that the subject policy provided no insurance coverage for Henges in defense of the federal complaint because that lawsuit does not allege a cause of action for advertising injury.
Matters of interpretation and application of an insurance contract are matters of law. McDonnell v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 936 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). A court must give meaning to all terms and, where possible, harmonize those terms in order to accomplish the intention of the parties. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 912 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995). Insurance contracts are designed to furnish protection, therefore, courts will interpret in favor of coverage rather than against it. Pakmark Corp. vs. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 943 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997).
In the companion Am. States Ins. Co. case we hold that Prest failed to allege a cause of action against any of the defendants for "advertising injury" as that term is used by American States in its general commercial liability policy. In addition to what we described and held in the companion case, there are other reasons to affirm in this case. First, the policy definition of advertising injury involves four items, all involve the activity of oral and written communications by the insured with others. The Prest lawsuit depends upon communication activities of Henges with others. It does not allege misappropriation of advertising ideas....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macheca Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.
...and, where possible, harmonize those terms in order to accomplish the intention of the parties.” Henges Mfg., LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 5 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Mo.Ct.App.1999). In this particular policy, the “collapse” provisions of the policy extended coverage to “buildings or any part of buil......
-
Blue Springs Dental Care, LLC v. Owners Ins. Co.
...See Macheca Transp. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. , 649 F.3d 661, 669 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Henges Mfg., LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co. , 5 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) ) (a court "must give meaning to all [policy] terms and, where possible, harmonize those terms in order to accompli......
-
Blum v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...than deny coverage." Cawthon v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 965 F.Supp. 1262, 1264 (W.D.Mo.1997); see also Henges Mfg., LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 5 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Mo.Ct.App.1999). When an insurance company relies upon a policy exclusion to deny coverage, the burden is on the insurance co......
-
Union Elec. Co. v. Aegis Energy Syndicate 1225
...terms and, where possible, harmonize those terms in order to accomplish the intention of the parties.” See Henges Mfg., LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 5 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Mo.Ct.App.1999). In particular, AEGIS maintains that the district court failed to heed the admonition that “endorsements and ......