Moore v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 54162,54162 |
| Citation | 754 S.W.2d 16 |
| Parties | Emmitt MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Schramm & Pines, M. Harvey Pines, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
George F. Kosta, J. Joseph Raymond, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court properly granted defendant, Commercial Union Insurance Company, summary judgment after finding the recovery sought by plaintiff insured, Emmitt Moore, was not a covered loss in a merchant's package liability insurance policy. The petition requested an award for attorney's fees paid by plaintiff to defend an earlier suit. The suit against plaintiff sought recovery for personal injury and property damages sustained by his tenant while the policy was in force. Defendant insurance company denied coverage and any obligation to defend the suit. Plaintiff defended at his own expense. The claim against plaintiff was dismissed before trial. We find defendant did not insure the loss and summary judgment was proper.
Summary judgment for defendant was granted on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court entered the judgment on November 19, 1987 on the authority of Rule 74.04(c) which authorized, when appropriate, summary judgment against the movant party. This procedure was withdrawn from the rule by a change adopted May 22, 1987, and effective January 1, 1988.
The operative facts are not in dispute. Defendant issued a Merchant's Package Policy to plaintiff Emmitt Moore which provided liability coverage for the period February 2, 1983 to February 2, 1984. Plaintiff's business was described as "building owner." The location of the insured business was 3125-27 North Grand, St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff purchased the insurance policy at a time when he owned 3125-27 North Grand and the adjoining property at 3129-33 North Grand. On December 12, 1983, plaintiff contracted with Richard Smith d/b/a Smith Bros. Wrecking Company for demolition of a structure located at 3129. At that time plaintiff was the lessor of the property at 3125 North Grand to Melvin Harlston under a lease commencing September 15, 1982 and ending September 30, 1987. During the demolition on the adjoining property, materials therefrom were caused to fall on the insured premises occupied by Harlston.
On February 22, 1985 Harlston filed suit against Richard Smith d/b/a Smith Bros. Wrecking Company and plaintiff Emmitt Moore. We quote all of the relevant provisions of the Harlston petition:
3. Plaintiff [Harlston] further states that on or about December 12, 1983, plaintiff owned and operated a grocery store known as Mel's Super Market, and was on the premises known as 3125 North Grand, when defendant Richard Smith d/b/a Smith Bros. Wrecking Company was engaged in the demolition of the building owned by defendant Emmitt Moore next door to plaintiff's business, and due to the carelessness and negligence of defendants, materials from the demolition of the building next door was [sic] caused to fall on the building plaintiff's business was being operated in, and thereby causing plaintiff to sustain serious, permanent and painful injuries, along with property damage and loss of business, all as a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of defendants.
Plaintiff tendered the defense of the Harlston suit to defendant Commercial Union Insurance Company. It declined coverage on the theory that any negligence alleged by Harlston occurred on the adjoining uninsured premises.
Plaintiff contends that the Harlston petition may be interpreted as charging plaintiff with negligent acts which occurred on the insured premises. The negligent acts on the insured premises were omissions in failing to protect Harlston from injury and damage. Plaintiff acknowledges that he was insured only in his capacity as the owner of 3125 North Grand. He contends that the policy required the insurance company to defend "against any claim or suit seeking damages under this policy, even if the allegations of the suit are groundless or false." This provision is a part of the policy but it pertains only to claims made against plaintiff in the capacity in which he was insured. This provision does not extend the coverage to include all acts of plaintiff. It includes only those actions taken by plaintiff in his capacity as owner which occurred on the insured premises. The policy only insures occurrences. The policy defines occurrence as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civic Associates v. Security Ins. Co.
...of an insurance policy is a question of law. Krombach v. Mayflower Ins. Co., 785 S.W.2d 728, Syl. ¶ 1 (Mo.App. 1990); Moore v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 754 S.W.2d 16, Syl. ¶ 2 (Mo.App.1985). In interpreting a policy of insurance we need only afford plain and unambiguous language its plain......
-
Cawthon v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 95-1167-CV-W-5.
...are matters of law and appropriate for court determination where there are no underlying facts in dispute. Moore v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 754 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Mo.App. 1988); Centermark Properties, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 897 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Mo.App. 1995). The parties have agreed that th......
-
Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Illinois v. Shell Oil Co.
...law, requiring de novo review. The interpretation of the meaning of an insurance policy is a question of law. Moore v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 754 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Mo.App.1988). "No deference is due the trial judgment where resolution of the controversy is a question of law." MFA Mut. Ins.......
-
Auto Owners Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wieners
...insurance policy is a question of law. Commerce Trust Company v. Howard, 429 S.W.2d 702, 705-706 (Mo.1968)." Moore v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 754 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Mo.App.1988). "The court did not call upon the jury to make findings of fact but rather submitted the question of law of whethe......