Ira E. Berry, Inc. v. American States Ins. Co., 39256
| Decision Date | 28 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 39256,39256 |
| Citation | 563 S.W.2d 514 |
| Parties | IRA E. BERRY, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Love, Lacks & McMahon, Thomas K. Edelmann, Clayton, for appellant.
William F. James, St. Louis, for respondent.
By this action plaintiff (hereafter "Berry"), sought to recover money from its liability insurer which Berry had paid in its unsuccessful defense of a damage suit based on Berry's fraud. Berry contended that by defendant's policy it was obliged to defend the action against it and to pay its loss. Defendant contended the loss was for fraud, expressly excluded from coverage. The trial court agreed and rendered summary judgment against Berry, from which Berry has appealed. We affirm.
By its policy, known as a Real Estate Agents' Errors and Omissions Policy, defendant agreed "to pay on behalf of the insured (Berry) all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay on account of any claim made against the insured and caused by any negligent act . . . in the conduct of their business as real estate agents."
During the policy period a suit was instituted against Berry by James B. and Judith A. Hutchings. Their petition alleged Berry had "falsely and fraudulently" made representations to them regarding real property they had purchased through Berry. Berry requested defendant to defend it pursuant to the policy provisions. Defendant refused to defend, claiming Berry was not afforded coverage for the fraudulent acts the Hutchings alleged. Defendant relied on a policy provision that excluded from coverage "any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act, libel or slander." Ultimately, Berry settled with and paid the Hutchings.
Berry then sued defendant-insurer to recover the sums it had paid the Hutchings. Defendant answered and moved for summary judgment. Berry filed an affidavit in opposition admitting the Hutchings' petition was grounded on fraud but further asserted that the conduct which gave rise to the Hutchings' action was negligent rather than fraudulent. The trial court then sustained defendant's motion and rendered summary judgment against Berry.
Berry contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the facts concerning its conduct giving rise to the Hutchings' action were in dispute, citing Rule 74.04(d) and Hurwitz v. Kohm, 516 S.W.2d 33(3) (Mo.App.1974).
For the purpose of avoiding summary judgment, a genuine issue of facts exists whenever there is doubt as to the facts. Seliga Shoe Stores, Inc. v. City of Maplewood, 558 S.W.2d 328(2) (Mo.App.1977). The undisputed facts here: (1) Defendant had insured Berry for loss resulting from negligence but not fraudulence, (2) the Hutchings' petition stated a cause of action based on fraud and (3) the Hutchings' action against Berry was settled without a judicial determination that Berry was liable for either fraud or negligence. Berry's affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment did not allege "such facts as would be admissible in evidence," (Rule 74.04(e)). In other words, Berry did not specify the acts which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. J&J Pilot Cars, LLC
...(citing Superior Equip. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co. , 986 S.W.2d 477, 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) ).31 Id. (citing Ira E. Berry, Inc. v. Am. States Ins. Co. , 563 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978) ).32 Gohagan v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 809 F.3d 1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing McCormack Baron Mgmt. ......
-
Columbia Union Nat. Bank v. HARTFORD ACC., ETC.
...754 (Mo. banc 1969); City of Palmyra v. The Western Casualty & Surety Co., 477 S.W.2d 428 (Mo.App. 1972); Ira E. Berry v. American States Insurance, 563 S.W.2d 514 (Mo.App.1978). Discussion of Issue No. Hartford's proposed conclusion No. 11 basically recites the same standard proposed by th......
-
Whitehead v. Lakeside Hosp. Ass'n
...U.S. Auto Supply, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 354 Mo. 455, 189 S.W.2d 529, 531[1, 2] (1945); Ira E. Berry, Inc. v. American States Ins. Co., 563 S.W.2d 514, 516[5, 6] (Mo.App.1978). Where the claim comes within the policy coverage, and so within the duty of the insurer to defend, the ref......
-
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. World Wrecking & Scrap Salvage Servs., Inc.
...81 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 1996)." Stein v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 120 F.3d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 1997) ; Berry v. American States Ins. Co. , 563 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. App. 1978). "The duty to indemnify is determined by the facts as they are established at trial or as they are finally determin......