See v. St. Paul Ins. Co.
| Citation | 577 S.W.2d 150 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | Cyrus SEE, Respondent, v. ST. PAUL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. 29771. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Dean F. Arnold, B. W. Jacob, Kansas City, for appellant.
Henry H. Fox, Jr., John R. Coffin, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.
We have before us defendant insurance company's appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $400.39 representing the value of a citizens band radio and microphone stolen from plaintiff's pickup truck. Plaintiff contends and defendant denies that the loss was covered by an insurance policy issued by defendant. It is admitted that the policy was in force, and that the loss was sustained.
The case was tried to the court without a jury upon a written stipulation of facts.
By the terms of the policy the loss was covered "only if the equipment at the time of the loss . . . (was) permanently installed in or upon" plaintiff's vehicle.
The loss occurred while plaintiff was eating breakfast in a restaurant, having left his locked pickup truck on the street nearby. Before leaving the truck, he had removed the radio and microphone from their mounting bracket on the dashboard and had placed them on the floor behind the driver's seat. (A supplemental stipulation, filed directly in this court, adds that this procedure involved the disconnection of electrical and aerial wires, and that the equipment was hidden from view behind the seat. 1) On plaintiff's return he found the truck had been broken into and the equipment missing.
It will be seen from the foregoing that the equipment At the time of the loss was not Permanently installed in or upon plaintiff's vehicle.
It follows that the loss was not covered by the insurance policy, and judgment should have gone for defendant upon plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff is not aided by the oft-iterated principle that ambiguities in insurance policies are resolved in favor of the insured. The contract language as applied to the circumstances of plaintiff's loss is plain and unambiguous. Moskowitz v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 544 S.W.2d 13, 16 (Mo. banc 1976); Hamiltonian Fed. S. & L. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 527 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Mo.App.1975).
Nor is there any place for deference to the trial court's findings of fact, which in the absence of specific findings are deemed to have been found in accordance with the result reached, Rule 73.01(b). The rule of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinney v. State Farm Mut. Ins.
...involves a question of law." MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 629 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Mo.App. W.D.1981) (citing See v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 577 S.W.2d 150 (Mo.App. 1979)). Prejudgment State Farm claims in its only point on appeal that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding ......
-
MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., WD
...dispute. No deference is due the trial court's judgment where resolution of the controversy is a question of law. See v. St. Paul Insurance Co., 577 S.W.2d 150 (Mo.App.1979). We therefore examine the primary issue, the policy obligation of Home Mutual, without reference to the determination......