Ingram v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 20252

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPARRISH; SHRUM, C.J., and CROW
CitationIngram v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. App. 1996)
Decision Date19 April 1996
Docket NumberNo. 20252,20252
PartiesJimmy INGRAM and Trina Ingram, Respondents, v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Terry R. Ottinger, Blanton, Rice, Sidwell & Ottinger, Sikeston, for appellant.

Jeffrey S. Maguire, Thomasson, Gilbert, Cook, Remley & Maguire, L.C., Cape Girardeau, for respondents.

PARRISH, Judge.

Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. (Shelter) appeals a summary judgment holding an endorsement in an automobile insurance policy invalid. The endorsement declared that the policy provided no insurance "while any automobile is being driven by or is under the direct control of: Ronald Harmon." The trial court held the endorsement violated public policy established by Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, chapter 303, RSMo 1986. This court affirms.

The named insureds in the automobile insurance policy are Jimmie Harmon and Evelyn Marie Harmon. The policy was in effect December 15, 1991, when the insureds' automobile collided with an automobile driven by Jimmy Ingram. Trina Ingram was a passenger in the Ingram vehicle. At the time of the accident, Ronald Harmon was driving the Harmon vehicle. He had permission from his mother, Evelyn Marie Harmon, to drive the vehicle.

Jimmy Ingram and Trina Ingram brought an action in the Circuit Court of Butler County, Missouri, against Ronald Harmon alleging they sustained injuries in the automobile accident due to his negligence. Judgment was rendered January 12, 1994, in favor of the Ingrams. Jimmy Ingram was awarded damages for personal injuries in the amount of $16,000. Trina Ingram was awarded damages for personal injuries in the amount of $17,000. The two of them were awarded property damages in the amount of $5,050.

Shelter denied coverage for the losses sustained by the Ingrams on the grounds that the terms of its insurance policy excluded coverage if an automobile was driven by Ronald Harmon. The Ingrams filed this action April 19, 1994, pursuant to § 379.200, RSMo Supp.1991. It provides, as is pertinent to this appeal:

Upon the recovery of a final judgment against any person, ... for loss or damage on account of bodily injury ... or damage to property if the defendant in such action was insured against said loss or damage at the time when the right of action arose, the judgment creditor shall be entitled to have the insurance money, provided for in the contract of insurance between the insurance company ... and the defendant, applied to the satisfaction of the judgment, and if the judgment is not satisfied within thirty days after the date when it is rendered, the judgment creditor may proceed in equity against the defendant and the insurance company to reach and apply the insurance money to the satisfaction of the judgment.... 1

Shelter alleges one point of error. It contends the trial court erred in holding it liable to the Ingrams "because the driver exclusion endorsement in the automobile liability policy denied coverage to Ronald Harmon in that an unambiguous insurance policy should be enforced as written unless it is against public policy." Shelter argues that the endorsement denying insurance coverage to any automobile operated by Ronald Harmon is not against public policy.

Section 303.025.1 and .2 2 provide:

1. No owner of a motor vehicle registered in this state shall operate the vehicle, or authorize any other person to operate the vehicle, unless the owner maintains the financial responsibility as required in this section. Furthermore, no person shall operate a motor vehicle owned by another with the knowledge that the owner has not maintained financial responsibility unless such person has financial responsibility which covers his operation of the other's vehicle.

2. A motor vehicle owner shall maintain his financial responsibility in a manner provided for in section 303.160, or with a motor vehicle liability policy which conforms to the requirements of the laws of this state.

These provisions of § 303.025 were part of a 1986 amendment to chapter 303. The purpose of the amendment was explained in Halpin v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 823 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1992).

The plain purpose of the 1986 amendment is to make sure that people who are injured on the highways may collect damage awards, within limits, against negligent motor vehicle operators. This protection extends to occupants of the insured vehicle as well as to operators and occupants of other vehicles and pedestrians.

Id. at 482. Halpin added, "We believe that the legislature had a purpose of requiring motor vehicle liability policies to provide coverage coextensive with liability, subject to the statutory limits." Id.

Halpin declared that exclusions in automobile liability policies that denied coverage to members of the insureds' household, "household exclusion clauses", were contrary to the public policy embodied in the 1986 amendment to chapter 303. The court held that household exclusion clauses would not be enforced insofar as they purported to deny coverage in the amounts required by Missouri law. Section 303.190.2 requires...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
8 cases
  • Yates v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 2011
    ...of the state are reviewed de novo. See Am. Standard Ins. Co. v. Hargrave, 34 S.W.3d 88, 89 (Mo. banc 2000); Ingram v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 854, 855–56 (Mo.App. S.D.1996). Where the trial court has granted summary judgment, as in this case, we also review the grant of summary ju......
  • Distler v. Reuther Jeep Eagle
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 2000
    ...American Standard Ins. Co. v. Dolphin, 801 S.W.2d 413, 416 (Mo. App. 1990); and a "named driver" exclusion, Ingram v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 854, 855 (Mo. App. 1996). Such exclusions deny a class of claimants the protection the legislature intended. However, if the MVFRL does not......
  • Bowen v. Atl. Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • November 25, 2013
    ...the insurance company. Id., p. 5 (citing Mazdra v. Selective Ins. Co., 398 S.W.2d 841, 845-46 (Mo. 1966); Ingram v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). ACI asserts that Saheba and Keshav Kalindi, LLC are not proper defendants in this action because judgment has been e......
  • Trow v. Worley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2001
    ...by WORLEY, ALLEN CHARLES or any other person with his or her permission or at his or her direction." 3. AFI cited Ingram v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 854 (Mo.App. 1996) as the reason for its change of position. AFI apparently decided the Ingram analysis rendered its exclusion of Cha......
  • Get Started for Free