Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Companies, No. 10059

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation549 S.W.2d 366
PartiesLawrence A. KYTE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FIREMAN'S FUND AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date28 March 1977
Docket NumberNo. 10059

Page 366

549 S.W.2d 366
Lawrence A. KYTE, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FIREMAN'S FUND AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10059.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.
March 28, 1977.

William C. Crawford, Frieze, Crandall & Crawford, Carthage, for plaintiff-respondent.

John R. Martin, Blanchard, Van Fleet, Martin, Robertson & Dermott, Joplin, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Lawrence Kyte sued for benefits allegedly due him under a group disability insurance policy issued by defendant Fireman's Fund. Plaintiff claimed defendant had paid some benefits but wrongfully refused to make further payments due under the policy. Defendant denied liability for additional benefits and counterclaimed

Page 367

for recovery of monies it alleged were overpaid plaintiff because of his receipt of benefits under another disability policy. The Circuit Court of Jasper County, sitting without a jury, found for plaintiff on his petition and on defendant's counterclaim, and entered judgment for plaintiff. We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal concerns the applicability of Part XV of the Fireman's Fund group policy which covered plaintiff as an employee of Foremost-McKesson, Incorporated. This clause, entitled "Reduction In Indemnity For Other Disability Insurance Benefits," provides as follows:

The amount of any Indemnity or expense payable under this policy shall be reduced by any benefits paid or payable under any other Disability Policies, or any plan, negotiated by or through any employer or sponsoring entity.

It was stipulated that plaintiff became disabled in 1971 and during June of that year began to receive monthly disability benefits under a policy with the Travelers Insurance Company. Defendant contends this policy with Travelers was "negotiated by or through" plaintiff's employer within the meaning of the above-quoted Part XV of his group policy with Fireman's Fund. It claims the benefits received by plaintiff from Travelers must be deducted from the amounts otherwise payable under its own policy.

The case was tried upon a stipulation of facts, documentary evidence, and the brief testimony of plaintiff. Plaintiff was employed by Foremost-McKesson from 1934 until he became disabled on June 30, 1971. In June 1958, Burt Barkus, an independent insurance agent, and Roy Wharton, a field supervisor for the Travelers Insurance Company, advised certain division officers of Foremost-McKesson that Travelers had a "franchise plan" for key employees. The plan would provide supplemental income in case of disability by illness. Under this plan the company employer had to agree to furnish a list of key employees, permit solicitation of employees on company premises, and make payroll deductions for premiums. If the company agreed to these conditions and at least five employees signed for the plan, it would become effective. After several letters and other communications between plaintiff's employer and representatives of Travelers, the officers of Foremost-McKesson agreed to the plan and the required number of employees applied for policies. Plaintiff Lawrence Kyte executed an application on July 7, 1958, and on October 1, 1958, Travelers issued to him the disability policy under which he began to receive benefits in 1971.

The Travelers "franchise plan" was not group insurance; each policy was individually applied for, and if the application was accepted Travelers issued an individual policy. In the event a policyholder under the plan left...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Webb v. Voirol, Nos. 85-1307
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 12, 1985
    ...Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 654 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Cos., 549 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Mo.Ct.App.1977). The language of the beneficiary clause is not patently ambiguous, and the district court therefore held it was without the......
  • Hrebec v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 41156.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 15, 1980
    ...to be resolved in favor of the insured, especially when dealing with exclusions from coverage. Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Cos., 549 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Mo.App.1977); Kay v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 548 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Mo.App.1977). Ordinarily, if a term is defined in the policy, ......
  • Walters v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 16498
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 7, 1990
    ...the insurer. Meyer Jewelry Co. v. General Ins. Co. of America, 422 S.W.2d 617, 623 (Mo.1968); Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Co., 549 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Mo.App.1977), citing Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Haas, supra, at 321. The trial court erred in granting respondent's motion for s......
  • Williamson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., Case No. 09-4114-CV-C-NKL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • June 21, 2012
    ...insured group; and (3) premiums "borne entirely" by the individual policy holder. See Kyte v. Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co.'s, 549 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). To be insured under this policy, Williamson did not have to apply or show evidence of insurability. Further, indivi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Webb v. Voirol, Nos. 85-1307
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 12, 1985
    ...Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 654 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Cos., 549 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Mo.Ct.App.1977). The language of the beneficiary clause is not patently ambiguous, and the district court therefore held it was without the......
  • Hrebec v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 41156.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 15, 1980
    ...to be resolved in favor of the insured, especially when dealing with exclusions from coverage. Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Cos., 549 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Mo.App.1977); Kay v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 548 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Mo.App.1977). Ordinarily, if a term is defined in the policy, ......
  • Walters v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 16498
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 7, 1990
    ...the insurer. Meyer Jewelry Co. v. General Ins. Co. of America, 422 S.W.2d 617, 623 (Mo.1968); Kyte v. Fireman's Fund American Ins. Co., 549 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Mo.App.1977), citing Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Haas, supra, at 321. The trial court erred in granting respondent's motion for s......
  • Williamson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., Case No. 09-4114-CV-C-NKL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • June 21, 2012
    ...insured group; and (3) premiums "borne entirely" by the individual policy holder. See Kyte v. Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co.'s, 549 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). To be insured under this policy, Williamson did not have to apply or show evidence of insurability. Further, indivi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT