Lake v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Missouri
| Decision Date | 23 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 42791,42791 |
| Citation | 624 S.W.2d 28 |
| Parties | Richard LAKE, Respondent, v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stephen D. Hoyne, St. Louis, for appellant.
Marion Wasinger, Hannibal, for respondent.
Suit on a fire insurance policy. Appellant insurance company (hereinafter "Farm Bureau") insured respondent-insured (hereinafter "insured") against fire loss of his barn ($9,000), tractor ($4,000) and hay ($500). Fire subsequently destroyed those items and Farm Bureau refused to pay the loss. We affirm in part and deny in part.
Insured filed suit in the circuit court by petition which alleged the issuance of the fire insurance policy, payment of the renewal premium by check dated June 24, 1977, and loss of the above described items by fire on June 25, 1977. Farm Bureau's response admitted issuance of the fire policy but was otherwise a general denial. Trial began on February 21, 1980, with insured objecting on voir dire to any reference by Farm Bureau to the lapse/forfeiture of the policy due to late payment of the renewal premium, an affirmative defense not pleaded by Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau claimed it was not liable for the loss because insured mailed his renewal premium after the fire, and after the expiration date of the policy. Insured said the policy continued in effect because Farm Bureau accepted payment without imposing any conditions. The trial court sustained insured's objection to the admission of any testimony pertaining to lapse/forfeiture.
Thereafter, Farm Bureau was prevented from any mention of the lapse/forfeiture argument during its opening statement, and its request to amend its answer to allege lapse/forfeiture was denied.
The trial court directed a $13,500 verdict for insured at the close of plaintiff's evidence, the full value of the policy coverage. Farm Bureau appeals, and in its points relied on claims the trial court erroneously prohibited it from demonstrating the policy was not in effect at the time of the fire. Farm Bureau wanted to show its policy coverage ended at noon on June 25, 1977; a fire occurred on June 25, 1977, but in the afternoon; Farm Bureau received a check dated June 24, 1977 from insured on June 28, 1977 in an envelope postmarked June 27, 1977; Farm Bureau negotiated the check on June 29, 1977, and there was no coverage under the policy from noon on June 25, 1977 through June 27, 1977. The trial court denied Farm Bureau the opportunity to demonstrate the foregoing because Farm Bureau failed to affirmatively plead the defense of lapse/forfeiture.
A directed verdict is a drastic measure, and a motion therefor should only be granted when all the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are so strongly in favor of the moving party there is no room for reasonable minds to differ. Crouse v. Burkemper, 593 S.W.2d 234, 235 (Mo.App. 1979).
The question presented by Farm Bureau in its points relied on is the legal effect of Farm Bureau's failure to plead lapse/forfeiture. Farm Bureau...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crewse v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., WD
...Hopkins v. North American Co. for Life and Health Insurance, 594 S.W.2d 310, 318 (Mo.App.1980); Lake v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 624 S.W.2d 28 (Mo.App.1981). This rule of submissibility arises from the language of the statute "without reasonable cause or excuse." If the evidence vi......
-
Armour v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 15669
...Grassham cited and relied primarily on Mitchell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 396 S.W.2d 647 (Mo.1965); Lake v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Mo., 624 S.W.2d 28 (Mo.App.1981) and M.F.A. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 259 S.W.2d 854 Defendant contends that this rule is not applicable bec......
-
ST. LOUIS TRIMMING INC. v. AMERICAN CRED. INDEM., 4:95CV1037-DJS.
...895 (Mo.App.1984); see also Armour v. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co., 770 S.W.2d 464, 465-66 (Mo.App.1989); Lake v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. of Missouri, 624 S.W.2d 28, 29 (Mo.App.1981); Quinn, 259 S.W.2d at 859. Because the exclusion upon which defendant relies is such a provision, the case la......
-
Grassham v. Farm Bureau Town and Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 13626
...with renewal provisions similar to the one here have been held to be "continuing" policies. Lake v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Missouri, 624 S.W.2d 28, 29 (Mo.App.1981); M.F.A. Mutual Insurance Co. v. Quinn, 259 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Mo.App.1953). The policies in Lake and Quinn, as ......