Kretsinger Real Estate Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 June 2016
• Docket Number: WD 78791
• Citation: 498 S.W.3d 506
• Parties: Kretsinger Real Estate Company and American Central Transport, Inc., Appellants, v. Amerisure Insurance Company, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

498 S.W.3d 506

Kretsinger Real Estate Company and American Central Transport, Inc., Appellants,

v.Amerisure Insurance Company, Respondent.

WD 78791

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 21, 2016

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 2, 2016.

Application for Transfer Denied September 20, 2016

Michael D. Hufft and Patrick E. White, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellants,

Martin J. Buckley and Elaine M. Moss, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division IV: Alok Ahuja, Chief Judge, Presiding, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge, and J. Dale Youngs, Special Judge

Mark D. Pfeiffer

, Judge

Kretsinger Real Estate Company (“Kretsinger”) and American Central Transport, Inc. (“ACT”) (collectively, “Judgment Creditors”) appeal from the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri (“trial court”), after a bench trial, in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) on the Judgment Creditors' equitable garnishment claim. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History¹

ACT desired to erect a parking lot in Clay County, Missouri, on land that it leased from Kretsinger. The parking lot was to abut ACT's truck maintenance center. The City of Kansas City approved the ACT terminal development plan, which included a pavement plan with pavement specifications. Kretsinger and ACT hired Triad Construction, Inc. (“Triad”) to construct the parking lot in accordance with the pavement plan. Triad subcontracted with City Cement Construction Company to supply labor and materials. City Cement purchased the concrete used to construct the parking lot from Fordyce Concrete.

City Cement completed construction of the parking lot in February 2007. Kretsinger and ACT commenced using the parking lot for tractors and trailers in March 2007. In May 2008, Kretsinger and ACT became aware that the parking lot was beginning to crumble, crack, and deteriorate.

Kretsinger and ACT filed suit against Triad and City Cement,² asserting claims for negligence in design of the parking lot, negligent misrepresentation, breach of professional contract, negligent supervision, and breach of contract (“Underlying Lawsuit”). A bench trial was conducted on December 30, 2013. The court entered judgment in favor of Kretsinger and ACT and against Triad on the negligent supervision and breach of contract counts and in favor of Triad and against Kretsinger and ACT on the negligence in design, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of professional contract counts. The court concluded that Triad breached its contract with Kretsinger and ACT to furnish all required labor, material, and equipment necessary to provide a parking lot in accordance with the ACT terminal final development plan and pavement bid.

In accordance with the opinion of Kretsinger and ACT's expert, Dr. Avi Mor, the court found:

• the concrete that City Cement purchased from Fordyce Concrete was defective at the time it was purchased and installed because it had air entrainment that was excessive and inconsistent, it had reinforcement fiber that was not sufficiently mixed, it consistently failed to attain the PSI and flexural strength required by the pavement plan, and it failed to achieve a strength adequate for the load after curing at least 28 days;

• the deterioration of the concrete was not repairable, and the only viable option for correction was removal and replacement of the concrete.

The court found that City Cement did not construct the parking lot in accordance with the pavement plan in that it used defective concrete and that Triad was responsible for the actions of its subcontractor City Cement. The court further found that as a direct and proximate result of the use of the defective concrete in the construction of the parking lot, the parking lot failed. The court found that the parking lot was irreparable and will continue to fail and deteriorate, with the only viable option for correction of the defective concrete being removal and replacement.

The court awarded Kretsinger and ACT a total of $3,374,870.80 in damages as a result of City Cement's use of defective concrete. The court found that the damages were liquidated and awarded Kretsinger and ACT prejudgment interest at the rate of 9% per annum from March 1, 2007, the date City Cement finished installing the defective concrete, until the date of judgment, December 30, 2013, for a total of $2,077,071.30 in prejudgment interest (“Underlying Judgment”).

Thereafter, on February 8, 2014, Judgment Creditors filed a petition for equitable garnishment pursuant to section 379.200, RSMo 2000

, against Triad and its commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurer, Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). Judgment Creditors sought satisfaction of the Underlying Judgment from primary and umbrella insurance policies issued by Amerisure to Triad.

A bench trial was conducted. Judgment Creditors' evidence consisted of certified copies of the primary and umbrella insurance policies issued by Amerisure to Triad, with effective dates from August 1, 2007, through August 1, 2011; certified copies of the certificates of good standing for Kretsinger and ACT; certified copies of the petition in the Underlying Lawsuit, the answers of Triad and City Cement, and the Underlying Judgment.

Amerisure's evidence included a certified copy of the transcript of the Underlying Lawsuit and the transcript of the deposition of a representative of Cincinnati Insurance Company and accompanying exhibits, which included the primary and umbrella insurance policies Cincinnati issued to Triad for the policy period from August 2005 through August 1, 2007, and evidence of Cincinnati's settlement of the property damage claim against Triad. Testifying for Amerisure was Randall Bernhardt, a licensed engineer certified for testing concrete and asphalt for pavement. Based upon his review of Dr. Mor's affidavit and the business records of Alpha Omega Geotech, which had tested the concrete, Mr. Bernhardt agreed with Dr. Mor's opinions that the concrete did not meet the specifications, was deficient, and should have been rejected. He testified that the only remedy for out-of-specification concrete is removal and replacement with up-to-specification concrete.

The trial court entered its judgment on June 3, 2015, in favor of Amerisure and against Judgment Creditors. The trial court found that Amerisure issued a CGL policy to Triad with policy limits of $1 million per occurrence and an umbrella policy with policy limits of $10 million per occurrence for the periods, with three annual renewals, of August 1, 2007, through August 1, 2011. The trial court concluded that Judgment Creditors did not meet their burden of establishing coverage under Amerisure's policies, and alternatively, Amerisure had met its burden to establish that the “your product” exclusion in the policies applied to defeat coverage. Specifically, the trial court concluded:

(1) Judgment Creditors failed to offer substantial evidence of “property damage” within any Amerisure policy period; coverage under CGL insurance policies is triggered when the “injury-in-fact” occurs, and Judgment Creditors' damages were fixed as of March 1, 2007, when the parking lot was put to its intended use and immediately began to deteriorate because the only remedy for that damage was complete removal and repair of the parking lot;

(2) Judgment Creditors failed to offer substantial evidence that the damages awarded in the Underlying Judgment constituted an “occurrence” covered by the Amerisure policies; damages flowing from a breach of contract due to failure to perform to designated specifications does not trigger coverage under an indemnity policy; and

(3) Judgment Creditors' claims are barred by the “your product” policy exclusion. Judgment Creditors timely appealed.

Standard of Review

The interpretation of Amerisure's policies to determine whether they cover the damages awarded Judgment Creditors in the Underlying Judgment is a question of law we review de novo. Vill. at Deer Creek Homeowners Ass'n v. Mid–Continent Cas. Co., 432 S.W.3d 231, 239 (Mo.App.W.D.2014)

. “However, in reviewing any factual determinations made by the trial court as a precursor to its determination of coverage, we apply the standard established by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).” Id. (internal quotation omitted). Under this standard, we will affirm the trial court's decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it misstates or misapplies the law. Id. “In applying this standard, we must view the evidence in [the] light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and permissible inferences.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Equitable Garnishment

This appeal arises from the judgment in an equitable action brought pursuant to section 379.200

. Although sometimes called an “equitable garnishment,” this direct cause of action against an insurance company “is no garnishment at all.” Zink v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 724 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Mo.App.W.D.1986), overruled on other grounds by

Johnston v. Sweany, 68 S.W.3d 398, 403 (Mo. banc 2002). “An equitable garnishment action is a legal proceeding, authorized by section 379.200, RSMo [2000], to reach insurance money in satisfaction of a judgment.” McDonald v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., 460 S.W.3d 58, 67 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (internal quotation omitted). “The underlying judgment is binding on the insurer by way of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

To establish an equitable garnishment claim, Judgment Creditors have the burden of proving three elements:

• First, that they obtained a judgment in their favor against Amerisure's insured (Triad). Id.

This element is not implicated by any of the issues on appeal, as there is no question that the Underlying Judgment for negligent supervision and breach of contract was in favor of Judgment Creditors against...