Lagermann v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri
| Decision Date | 31 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 30721.,SD 30721. |
| Citation | 356 S.W.3d 780 |
| Parties | Mark LAGERMANN and Shelly Lagermann, Respondents, v. FARM BUREAU TOWN AND COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Denied Nov. 23, 2011.
Application for Transfer
Denied Jan. 31, 2012.
Samuel P. Spain, Spain, Miller & Spain, LLC, Poplar Bluff, for Appellant.
John M. Albright and Daniel T. Moore, Poplar Bluff, for Respondents.
Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court which found in favor of Mark Lagermann (“Mr. Lagermann”) and Shelly Lagermann (“Mrs. Lagermann”) (collectively “Respondents”) on an action involving the denial of coverage by Appellant under a homeowner's insurance policy for damage that occurred when their garage collapsed due to the weight of ice and snow that had collected on its roof during an ice storm. Appellant asserts four points of trial court error. Point II is dispositive. It posits trial court error on the basis that Respondents did not prove all the elements of a cause of action for breach of an oral contract to insure their garage. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. The Windsor Group, Inc., 103 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Mo.App.2003), the record reveals Respondents are the owners of property in Wayne County, Missouri, upon which is located a mobile home and a 30 foot by 50 foot outbuilding which they referred to as “the garage.” Having always kept the structures on their property insured, in the fall of 2008 Respondents began “calling agents around Piedmont ... getting quotes.” Mrs. Lagermann contacted Jeff Parker (“Mr. Parker”), an insurance agent employed by Appellant, via telephone. Following several phone calls, Mr. Parker came to Respondents' property in order to give them an insurance quote. According to Mrs. Lagermann, Mr. Parker told her that “basically this policy covers everything from wind and rain to civil unrest” and he characterized it as the “best” policy. She related Mr. Parker made no express mention of levels of coverage associated with the policy.1 Mrs. Lagermann then informed Mr. Parker that Respondents desired to have coverage under the policy proposed by Mr. Parker and Mr. Parker told Mrs. Lagermann to come by his office to fill out an application. Thereafter, Mr. Lagermann went by Mr. Parker's office to fill out and sign a “PROTECTOR APPLICATION” (“the Application”) which contained, inter alia, a “SCHEDULE OF OTHER STRUCTURES” including the item “GARAGE/1” with a coverage amount of $30,000,000 and a yearly premium of $133.88. Also included on the application was a “Membership Number” of “0640477” and in the block designated as “Period” was the following notation: “Coverage begins on: 9/8/2008” and “Coverage expires on: 9/8/2009.” Mr. Lagermann gave Mr. Parker a check for the required premiums to begin coverage.
Also, at that time Mr. Parker gave Mr. Lagermann a document entitled “PROTECTOR ILLUSTRATION” (“the Illustration”) containing this table:
THIS IS NOT A BINDER OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. No insurance coverage is afforded until coverage is bound through a Missouri Farm Bureau agent.There were no particular exclusions or levels of coverage listed either on the Application or the Illustration signed by Mr. Lagermann. According to Respondents, they never received a copy of their insurance policy.
On January 28, 2009, following an ice storm, the garage roof collapsed under the weight of snow and ice. Respondents filed a claim with Appellant and Mr. Parker dispatched an insurance adjuster to survey the damage. After the insurance adjuster visited the property, Respondents were informed their policy did not cover the damage to the garage due to the weight of ice and snow. It was explained that they had purchased only “level one protection” which did not insure perils arising from damage due to ice and snow. Mrs. Lagermann then requested a full copy of her insurance policy from Appellant. The “INFORMATION PAGE” (“the Information Page”) attendant to the policy, which was received by Respondents in the mail on February 19, 2009, provided, inter alia:
When Appellant continued to deny Respondents' claim for coverage, Respondents initiated the present lawsuit.
In their “PETITION,” Respondents asserted the garage was covered under the “OTHER STRUCTURES” provision of the policy which provided that:
[t]his policy provides coverage for the described Other Structures only if Other Structures is shown on the Information Page(s) and a premium is listed for the Other Structures. We cover other structure(s) shown on the Information Page under Coverage B up to the amount of the insurance shown on the Information Page(s).
In its Answer, Appellant admitted it issued the policy; that “ ‘other structures' are covered under the policy but ... the policy speaks for itself in regard to the scope of said coverage;” and that the garage was destroyed as the result of “ice and snow accumulation.” However, Appellant stated Respondents “only purchased ‘level one protection’ for ‘other structures' ” and such coverage does not cover damage caused by “[t]he weight of ice, snow or sleet....” Appellant pled no other defenses.
A trial in this matter was held on April 27, 2010. There is no question the pleadings were amended by implied consent of the parties to include an allegation of an oral contract between Appellant and Respondents to insure both the mobile home and the garage. See Rule 55.33(b).2 At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
On June 23, 2010, the trial court issued its “FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT.” The trial court concluded Mr. Parker told Mrs. Lagermann “that the coverage [Appellant] offered would be the widest coverage there was and it would cover ‘everything’ from ‘wind and rain to civil unrest;’ ” that neither the Illustration nor the Application included any information about the level of coverage provided under the policy; that Mr. Parker's recitation of the conversation he had with Mrs. Lagermann was not credible; that Appellant “failed to forward a copy of the [Information P]age and the policy” to Respondents such that they had no knowledge as to what perils were covered by their policy; and that Respondents were not informed about the existence of different levels of coverage until after they filed their claim for damage to the garage. As a result, the trial court concluded, inter alia, that
[n]either the [Illustration], which was the only document received by [Respondents] from [Appellant] prior to the date of the loss nor the [A]pplication makes any mention of a particular level of coverage.... This is coupled with the fact that [Mr. Parker] failed to inform [Respondents] that there was an exclusion for snow and ice.... The Court notes further that the [Information P]age and, in this case, the [Illustration], which was the only document given to [Respondents] prior to the loss, was the document most likely to be read by the insured. The [Illustration] did, in fact, contain the terms requested by [Respondents].
As a result, the trial court adjudged Respondents were entitled to $30,000.00 plus interest for the loss of the garage. This appeal followed.
On appellate review, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support the decree, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or apples the law. Smith ex rel. Stephan v. AF & L Ins. Co., 147 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Mo.App.2004). Further, “[w]hen reviewing a court-tried case, we view all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences.” Gen. Motors, 103 S.W.3d at 796. As always, our primary concern “ ‘is the correctness of the trial court's result, not the route taken to reach it.’ ” Cameron Mut. Ins. Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omicron Capital, LLC
...insured against; third, the amount; fourth, the duration of the risk; and fifth, the premium.'" Lagermann v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., 356 S.W.3d 780, 784-85 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Chailand v. M.F.A. Mut. Ins. Co., 375 S.W.2d 78, 81 (Mo. 1964)). It is essential that "the mi......
-
Best Buy Builders, Inc. v. Siegel
...it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Lagermann v. Farm Bureau Town and Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 356 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Mo.App.S.D.2011). In reviewing a court-tried case, this court views all the evidence and inferences in the light most......
-
Williamson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., ED 97266.
...weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. Lagermann v. Farm Bureau Town and Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 356 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Mo.App. S.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the r......