Steelman v. Holford
| Citation | 765 S.W.2d 372 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 15663,15663 |
| Parties | Larry D. STEELMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dennis HOLFORD and Rodger Friedly, Defendants-Respondents. HOME MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry Dee STEELMAN, Dennis Holford and Rodger Friedly, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
David L. Steelman, Salem, for plaintiff-respondent Steelman.
Ronald J. Prenger, Hyder, Prenger, Bratten & Neff, Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent Holford.
Albert Crump, Jr., Williams & Crump, Rolla, for plaintiff-appellant Home Mut.
Home Mutual Insurance Company (Home Mutual) appeals from a trial court judgment declaring it had a legal obligation to defend a suit for damages brought by Larry Steelman against Home Mutual's insured, Dennis Holford, and to provide Holford liability coverage within the limits of its policy of insurance issued to him. Steelman's suit alleged that he suffered personal injury and damage by reason of having been shot by either Holford or Holford's companion, Rodger Friedly. Steelman further alleged that his injury was directly caused by Holford's and Friedly's carelessness and negligence in randomly shooting a firearm in the vicinity of a tractor trailer truck being driven by Steelman, at which time a bullet entered the cab of the truck and struck him in the leg.
In its brief filed here, Home Mutual claims the trial court's judgment was based on erroneous applications of law, which contention, if true, mandates reversal. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Since such contention is not supported by either fact or law, we affirm.
The legal background of the case is as follows. In his personal injury suit, Steelman alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Holford and Friedly because they (1) discharged firearms at random on, along, or across a public highway, (2) shot into the tractor trailer truck driven by Steelman, (3) possessed or discharged firearms while intoxicated, and, that by reason of Holford's and Friedly's negligent acts specified in (1), (2), and (3), Steelman was struck by a bullet in his right leg, below the knee.
Following the filing of Steelman's lawsuit, Home Mutual filed a petition for declaratory judgment which sought a court declaration as to whether Holford had policy coverage "with respect to the accident and personal injury referred [to] in Defendant Larry Steelman's petition...." It was Home Mutual's position that two exclusionary clauses in its policy of insurance issued to Holford barred coverage. The exclusions were that medical payments to others do not apply to bodily injury or property damage when the claimant's injury by the insured had either been expected or intended by the insured, or if the act causing the injury arose out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle owned or operated by the insured. The declaratory judgment suit was consolidated with the personal injury action, after which the trial court ordered a separate trial on the issues presented in the declaratory judgment suit.
By agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the court, the evidence was limited to six exhibits, plus depositions of Friedly, Holford and Steelman. The exhibits were Holford's homeowners insurance policy, Steelman's petition for damages, a handwritten statement given by Holford, copies of docket sheets, and felony complaint charges against Holford and Friedly that showed both had entered pleas of guilty to class D felony charges of assault in the second degree in that they had "recklessly caused serious physical injury to Larry Steelman, by shooting him with a .30 caliber rifle."
Following consideration of the evidence, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment. The findings of fact are not challenged here by Home Mutual and read as follows:
1. That the plaintiff is a mutual insurance company with its principal office in Appleton, Wisconsin and is authorized to do business in the State of Missouri.
2. That the defendant Dennis Holford is a resident of Cole County, Missouri.
3. That the defendant Rodger Friedly is a resident of Monroe County, Missouri.
4. That the defendant Larry Dee Steelman has instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Dent County, Missouri, which said suit was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri, upon a change of venue and is entitled 'Larry D. Steelman, Plaintiff, vs. Dennis Holford and Rodger Friedly, Defendants, Case No. CV386-111CC'.
5. That the petition of defendant Larry Dee Steelman alleges negligence and carelessness on the part of defendants Dennis Holford and Rodger Friedly in that they were driving while intoxicated; discharged firearms while driving and that Larry Dee Steelman was injured by such actions.
6. That the plaintiff Home Mutual Insurance Company issued a homeowner's policy bearing policy number H 140-78-74 in which the defendant Dennis L. Holford was shown as the name insured.
7. That plaintiff's policy of insurance provides for payment for damages of bodily injury and property damage to the limit of liability and for defense of suit filed against the insured for such damage caused by the activities of any insured.
8. Plaintiff's policy of insurance provides for certain exclusions to medical payments for bodily injury or property damage:
(a) Which is expected or intended by the insured; ...
(e) Arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of: ...
(2) A motor vehicle owned or operated by, or rented or loaned to any insured;
9. That defendant Larry Dee Steelman does not know whether defendant Dennis Holford or defendant Rodger Friedly shot him.
10. That on the 7th day of October, 1983, the defendant Dennis Holford entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to the offense of the Class D felony of assault in the second degree as set out in Case No. CR483-105FX in the Circuit Court of Dent County, Missouri, in which case the defendant Dennis Holford was charged as follows:
'The Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Dent, State of Missouri, charges that the defendant, in violation of Section 565.060 RSMo., committed the Class D felony of assault in the second degree, punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011.1(4) and 560.011, RSMo, in that on or about March 2, 1983, in the County of Dent, State of Missouri, the defendant recklessly caused serious physical injury to Larry Steelman, by shooting him with a .30 caliber rifle.'
11. That on the 25th day of August, 1983, the defendant Rodger Friedly entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to the offense of assault in the second degree, a Class D felony in Case No. CR483-195X in the Circuit Court of Dent County, Missouri, in which case the defendant Rodger Friedley was charged as follows:
'William Camm Seay, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Dent, State of Missouri, charges that the defendant, in violation of Section 565.060, RSMo., committed the Class D felony of assault in the second degree, punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011.1(4) and 560.011, RSMo., in that on or about March 2, 1983, in the County of Dent, State of Missouri, the defendant recklessly caused serious physical injury to Larry Steelman, by shooting him with a .30 caliber rifle.'
12. That the defendants Dennis Holford and Rodger Friedly were riding in a Jeep motor vehicle owned by defendant Dennis L. Holford during the period of time when the defendant Larry Steelman was shot and injured.
13. That the defendant Dennis Holford states that he was operating the Jeep motor vehicle and the defendant Rodger Friedly was in the passenger seat discharging the firearm during the period of time when the defendant Larry Steelman was injured.
14. That the defendant Rodger Friedly states that he was operating the Jeep motor vehicle and the defendant Dennis Holford was in the passenger seat discharging the firearm during the period of time when the defendant Larry Steelman was injured.
Based on its findings of fact, the trial court made several conclusions of law, which are:
1. That the defendant Larry Steelman sustained bodily injuries as that term is defined by the policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff Home Mutual Insurance Company.
2. That the plaintiff Home Mutual Insurance Company is not obligated to provide a defense or to pay a judgment or otherwise provide coverage only if bodily injury to others occurs which is expected or intended by the insured, Dennis Holford.
3. That the bodily injuries of the defendant Larry Steelman were bodily injuries which were neither expected or intended by the insured defendant Dennis Holford and do not fall within the exclusion form coverage under the policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff, Home Mutual Insurance Company.
4. That it is against public policy to allow the plaintiff Home Mutual Insurance Company to extend its exclusionary clause so as to include 'To a person off the insured location, if the bodily injury: (2) is caused by the activities of any insured;' when that is exactly what the policy issued to the insured promised to provide.
5. That the bodily injuries sustained by defendant Larry Dee Steelman were not directly or indirectly caused by the use of a motor vehicle owned by the insured Dennis Holford, but were caused by a firearm, and the exclusionary clause under the policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff Home Mutual Insurance Company does not apply.
Based on these findings and conclusions, the trial court entered the following judgment:
[I]t is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the acts of defendant Dennis Holford are covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with respect to the bodily injury sustained by Larry Dee Steelman and that there is liability coverage for defendant Dennis Holford through Home Mutual Insurance Company and that the said Home Mutual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
...44 Ill.Dec. 791, 793, 411 N.E.2d 1157, 1159; Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Graham, supra, 537 N.E.2d at p. 512; Steelman v. Holford (Mo.Ct.App.1989) 765 S.W.2d 372, 377; Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. v. Turnbo, supra, 740 S.W.2d at p. In dictum, this court, too, has observed that the i......
-
Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co.
...his acts. [Citations.]" (Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. v. Turnbo (Mo.Ct.App.1987) 740 S.W.2d 232, 236; see also Steelman v. Holford (Mo.Ct.App.1989) 765 S.W.2d 372, 377.) However, this extended definition of "expect" comes about only if "intend" is given the specialized meaning used in th......
-
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
...44 Ill.Dec. 791, 793, 411 N.E.2d 1157, 1159; Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Graham, supra, 537 N.E.2d at p. 512; Steelman v. Holford (Mo.Ct.App.1989) 765 S.W.2d 372, 377; Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. v. Turnbo, supra, 740 S.W.2d at p. In dictum, this court, too, has observed that the i......
-
Cawthon v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 95-1167-CV-W-5.
...a vehicle exclusion clause. Only one Missouri case has been cited by counsel which clearly fits into this category. In Steelman v. Holford, 765 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.1989), the court refused to find vehicular use so as to trigger an exclusion clause in a homeowner's policy. The claimant was th......