Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 75331
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | BENTON |
| Citation | 853 S.W.2d 300 |
| Parties | 83 Ed. Law Rep. 846 Norma J. PETERS, et al., Respondents, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 75331,75331 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1993 |
Page 300
v.
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., Appellant.
En Banc.
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1993.
Theresa Shean Hall and Glenn E. McCann, Kansas City, for appellant.
R. Dan Boulware and Carol C. Barnett, St. Joseph, for respondents.
Page 301
BENTON, Judge.
On February 18, 1989, fire destroyed the Mule Barn Theatre at Tarkio College, consuming personal property owned by the two plaintiff faculty members. Tarkio College had insured the Mule Barn Theatre and its "contents" with defendant, Employers Mutual Casualty Company.
Does defendant's policy cover the plaintiffs' property up to the limit of $3,625,200? Yes, answered the circuit court, finding coverage. After appeal to the Court of Appeals, Western District, this Court granted transfer. Affirmed.
I.
Defendant argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to seek a declaratory judgment because they are not parties to the insurance policy, nor third-party beneficiaries. True, the policy does not refer by name to plaintiffs. Tarkio College is the "named insured" and defendant clearly the insurer.
Third-party beneficiaries, however, may sue for declaratory judgment if they could enforce the contract. Gurniak v. Liszewski, 411 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Mo.1967). Invoking the presumption that parties contract for themselves and not for the benefit of others, defendant argues that plaintiffs are "incidental beneficiaries" who cannot enforce the contract. State ex rel. Ranni Associates, Inc. v. Hartenbach, 742 S.W.2d 134, 140 (Mo. banc 1987).
A third-party beneficiary can sue to enforce the contract if the contract terms "clearly express" an intent to benefit either that party or an identifiable class of which the party is a member. Id. at 140-141. In this case, the insurance policy twice mentions the "personal property of others" in the care, custody or control of the named insured. The policy also twice says that the defendant's "payment for loss of or damage to personal property of others will only be for the account of the owner of the property."
Thus, the insurance policy clearly expresses an intent to benefit those whose personal property is in the care, custody or control of the insured college, and to pay the owner directly. Defendant, of course, contends that the College did not intend to cover the personal property of others. The policy terms, however, give plaintiffs sufficient standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to determine the extent of coverage.
II.
Defendant claims that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of intent, while finding coverage based on the plain language of the policy.
At trial, defendant repeatedly offered evidence of intent. Defendant's vice-president--its highest ranking witness--candidly stated defendant's theory of coverage: "They did not request it, they did not pay any premium for it. I think it was not the intent of Tarkio [College] to provide coverage for it at the time the policy was written." In support of non-coverage, defendant offered the insurance proposal drafted by the college and its broker, the "statement of values" of covered property, and the previous insurance policy from a different company. Defendant also offered two of its insurance agents and three of its underwriters to testify that the College did not intend coverage for the personal property of others.
The trial judge properly refused evidence of intent. Because the College drafted the insurance proposal, took bids, and switched insurance companies, this insurance contract was negotiated and not an adhesion contract. Defendant's heavy reliance on Estrin Construction Co., Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 612 S.W.2d 413 (Mo.App.1981) and Spychalski v. MFA Life Insurance Co., 620 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.App.1981) is misplaced, because these cases apply only to adhesion contracts and not to negotiated contracts. Rodriguez v. General Accident Ins. Co., 808 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo. banc 1991); Robin v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Mo. banc 1982).
This Court has long held that the general rules for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pepe v. Rival Co., No. CIV. A. 98-5091 AJL.
...courts first look to the language of the agreement to ascertain the intention of the parties. See Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.1993) (en banc); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Shahan, 141 F.3d 819, 823 (8th Cir.1998) (interpreting Missouri law......
-
Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Leiendecker, No. 71213
...at 210. See also Gulf Insurance Co. v. Noble Broadcast, 936 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Mo. banc 1997); Peters v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo. banc 1993). If insurance policies are unambiguous, rules of construction do not apply and we must enforce the contract as writte......
-
Trico Industries, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. CV 89-5985 WJR (JRx).
...An ambiguity exists when the meaning of language is duplicitous, indistinct, or uncertain. Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.1993). If a clause is ambiguous the court must construe it in favor of the insured. Omaha Indem. v. Pall, 817 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Mo.Ct. 853 F. Supp......
-
May Dept. Stores Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 01-3861.
...(7th Cir.2002).) But in cases decided by the Missouri courts in the years since Eagle, such as Peters v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.1993), and Robin v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 697-98 (Mo.1982), these courts have continued to invoke the ......
-
Pepe v. Rival Co., No. CIV. A. 98-5091 AJL.
...courts first look to the language of the agreement to ascertain the intention of the parties. See Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.1993) (en banc); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Shahan, 141 F.3d 819, 823 (8th Cir.1998) (interpreting Missouri law......
-
Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Leiendecker, No. 71213
...at 210. See also Gulf Insurance Co. v. Noble Broadcast, 936 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Mo. banc 1997); Peters v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo. banc 1993). If insurance policies are unambiguous, rules of construction do not apply and we must enforce the contract as writte......
-
Trico Industries, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. CV 89-5985 WJR (JRx).
...An ambiguity exists when the meaning of language is duplicitous, indistinct, or uncertain. Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.1993). If a clause is ambiguous the court must construe it in favor of the insured. Omaha Indem. v. Pall, 817 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Mo.Ct. 853 F. Supp......
-
May Dept. Stores Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 01-3861.
...(7th Cir.2002).) But in cases decided by the Missouri courts in the years since Eagle, such as Peters v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 853 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.1993), and Robin v. Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 697-98 (Mo.1982), these courts have continued to invoke the ......
-
Claims denials
...Sometimes these “others” are referred to as third-party beneficiaries of the policy. See, e.g., Peters v. Employers Mutual Carrier Co., 853 S.W.2d 300 (Mo. 1993) (teachers at insured college were covered by college’s policy, for fire damage to their personal property kept in college’s theat......