Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hill

• Docket Number: WD 85527
• Decision Date: 20 February 2024
• Citation: 688 S.W.3d 638
• Parties: SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Trevor HILL, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

688 S.W.3d 638

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.Trevor HILL, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander, Respondents.

WD 85527

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Opinion filed: February 20, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, MISSOURI, THE HONORABLE SCOTT A. HAYES, JUDGE

William C. Crawford, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.

Anthony W. Bonuchi, Kansas City, MO, for RespondentsTrevor Hill and Leslie Hill.

Division Two: W. Douglas Thomson, Presiding Judge, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge and Janet Sutton, Judge

W. DOUGLAS THOMSON, JUDGE

[1]Shelter Mutual Insurance Company("Shelter") appeals the summary judgment of the Circuit Court of Randolph County("trial court") holding a minor child ("Daughter") is not a resident of her natural father’s ("Father") household for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion.Shelter raises three points on appeal, ar- guing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Respondents and denying its own motion for summary judgment, because the trial court erroneously (1) applied Missouri law to the parties’ stipulated, uncontroverted facts because such facts establish that an exclusion under the policy applied to bar coverage, (2) relied on facts outside the parties’ stipulated, uncontroverted facts and the record as the basis for its summary judgment holding, and (3) applied Missouri law by invoking rules of policy construction instead of applying the plain language of the policy exclusion.We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural History¹

This case was presented to the trial court on the parties’ Joint Statement of Undisputed Stipulated Facts.On July 26, 2018, when she was eleven years old, Daughter was injured while riding on an ATV driven by Brother.The ATV was owned by Father and the injury occurred on his property in Randolph County, Missouri.As a result of this incident, "[Daughter] was seriously and permanently injured, including severe and permanent facial scarring and disfigurement, limited vision, PTSD, etc."It was stipulated "that damages resulting from the July 26, 2018 incident exceed $1 million."

About eleven years prior to the incident, Daughter’s natural mother("Mother") and Father had divorced.Since then, Mother has lived in Linn County, Missouri, while Father has lived in Randolph County since approximately the same time.The divorce judgment granted Daughter’s parents joint legal and physical custody of Daughter.A Joint Parenting Plan was put in place which stated that "[t]he parties wish to continue to share the responsibility for the care of their minor child and to each fully participate in all major decisions affecting their child’s residence, health, education and welfare."The Parenting Plan also declared that "[t]he parties shall share physical custody as equally as possible and as agreed to between the parties[,]" but provided a custody schedule in the event the parties were unable to agree.The parties followed this custody schedule.For educational purposes only, Mother’s residence was designated as Daughter’s primary residence.The Judgment of Dissolution denominated Father as the "Non-Residential Parent," meaning the "parent with whom the child is not residing[,]" and further pronounced that "[p]rimary physical placement of [Daughter] shall be with Petitioner[Mother], subject to the Respondent’s [Father’s] rights of reasonable and liberal visitation."²(Fourth and fifth alterations in original).

In 2015, the Judgment of Dissolution was modified by the Linn County Circuit Court.The circuit court continued joint legal and physical custody of Daughter with Father and Mother.Father’s parenting time continued to be every other weekend, two weeks in the summer, and alternating holidays, but a Wednesday night visit between Father and Daughter was eliminated.

On the date of the ATV accident, a Farmowners Policy issued by Shelter to Father was in effect.In relevant part, the Farmowners Policy includes:

FARMOWNERS INSURANCE POLICY SPECICAL COVERAGE FORM 3

***

DEFINITIONS USED THROUGHOUT THIS POLICY …

8.Insured means:

(a) You;

(b) Your relatives residing in your household; and

(c) Any other person under the age of 21 residing in your household who is in your care or the care of a resident relative.

***

SECTION II - COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL LIABILITY PROTECTION

COVERAGE E - PERSONAL LIABILITY

Wewill pay all sums arising out of any one loss which an insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage and caused by an occurrence covered by this policy.

***

EXCLUSIONS - SECTION II …

Under Personal Liability we do not cover: …

9.Bodily injury to:

a) You;

b) Your relatives residing in your household; and

c) Any other person under the age of 21 residing in your household who is in your care or the care of a resident relative.

At the time of the July 26, 2018 accident, Daughter lived with Mother in Linn County during Mother’s parenting time, and visited Father and Daughter’s step-mother("Step-Mother") in Randolph County during Father’s parenting time.Mother and Father lived about an hour away from each other.Daughter visited Father approximately 20% of the time and lived with Mother approximately 80% of the time in the six months prior to the accident.Father’s parenting time with Daughter continued to be every other weekend, alternating holidays, and approximately two weeks during the summer.Otherwise, Daughter stayed at Mother’s house.Daughter maintained a bedroom at Father’s home with limited clothing.She had no key to his home, received no mail at his house, and did not participate in any sports, events, or clubs in Randolph County.Father was several months behind in his monthly child support payments, and accordingly did not pay monthly expenses for Daughter or provide substantial support of Daughter or to Mother's household.

On the date of the accident, "[f]or educational purposes only, [Mother’s] residence [was] designated [Daughter’s] primary residence," pursuant to the Joint Parenting Plan.Daughter attended school in Linn County, as she had done her entire life.She had a room at Mother’s house with the vast majority of her clothing there, had digital keys to the home, and received mail at the house.Daughter was also "very active in multiple activities in Linn County," including feeding cows and sheep daily as part of her involvement in FFA and 4H, attending church, and being active in the youth group within her parish.

On June 16, 2020, Daughter filed a three-count Petition ("Underlying Suit") by and through Mother as her next friend against Father and Step-Mother.The three counts alleged were negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality.This Underlying Suit was ultimately voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On September 23, 2020, Shelter filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment against Father, Step-Mother, Daughter, and Mother.³The Petition sought, in relevant part, a determination that "there is no insurance coverage under a Farm Owner’s Policy issued to [Father.]"⁴Among other facts, Shelter alleged that "[u]nder Missouri law, [Daughter] is a resident of [Father]’s home for purposes of insurance coverage" and that "[t]here is no coverage for the Underlying Suit, under the Shelter Farmowners Policy Personal Liability Coverage, due to that policy’s exclusion providing that 'there is no Personal Liability for bodily injury to "[y]our relatives residing in your household." ’ "(Last alteration in original).Respondents and Shelter subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment, each incorporating the parties’ Joint Statement of Undisputed Stipulated Facts.The Joint Statement of Undisputed Stipulated Facts did not include a stipulation about the ultimate issue to be decided by the trial court - whether Daughter was residing in Father’s household at the time of the accident.

The trial court ultimately found "that under the facts and the law .. Daughter is not a resident of [Father]’s household and that [Respondents] are entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents and against Shelter on the issues concerning the Farmowners Policy, and correspondingly denied the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Shelter.The trial court thus decreed that Shelter has a duty to provide insurance coverage for Daughter’s claims under the Farmowners Policy.Additionally, the trial court found that insurance coverage is also available under an Automobile Policy issued to Father.

Shelter appeals only the trial court’s findings concerning the Farmowners Policy.

Standard of Review

[2–4] Our review is governed by the standard set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court:

The trial court makes its decision to grant summary judgment based on the pleadings, record submitted, and the law; therefore, this Court need not defer to the trial court’s determination and reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo.In reviewing the decision to grant summary judgment, this Court ap-plies the same criteria as the trial court in determining whether summary judgment was proper.Summary judgment is only proper if the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue as to the material facts and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Green v. Fotoohighiam, 606 S.W.3d 113, 115(Mo. banc 2020)(quotingGoerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450, 452(Mo. banc 2011)(abrogated on other grounds)).

[5–8]"Because the case was submitted on stipulated facts entered into between the parties in the proceedings before the trial court, ‘[t]he only question before us is whether the trial court made the proper legal conclusion from the stipulated facts.’ "Jones v. Am. Fam. Mut Ins. Co., S.I., 632 S.W.3d 482, 487(Mo. App. W.D.2021)(alteration in original)(quotingCady v....