Truck Ins. Exchange v. Heman, WD
| Decision Date | 02 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 800 S.W.2d 2 |
| Parties | TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellant, v. Leonard HEMAN and Frances Heman, Respondents. 43053. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lance Lefevre, Kansas City, for appellant.
Michael Manners, Independence, for respondents.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and MANFORD and BERREY, JJ.
This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to respondents, Leonard and Frances Heman, on appellant's, Truck Insurance Exchange, petition for declaratory judgment. Reversed.
On December 3, 1983, Leonard and Frances Heman contracted with Terra-Dome by 21st Century Builders, Ltd. (Terra-Dome) for construction of a structure to be located on property owned by the Hemans in Independence, Missouri. The contract contained a warranty whereby Terra-Dome warranted the structure to be free from defects in workmanship or materials which would allow water to penetrate the exterior wall, roof, or surface for five years. Terra-Dome did erect a structure upon the property.
The Hemans filed suit against the statutory trustees of Terra-Dome, alleging that the structure erected was defective. Specifically, the Hemans alleged that Terra-Dome, employed poor concrete placement practices and defective waterproofing material resulting in considerable leakage in the structure.
Appellant, Truck Insurance Exchange, filed a declaratory judgment action asking the court to declare that its policy of insurance, No. 14 60003 68 90, issued to Terra-Dome, afforded no coverage for the claims of the Hemans against the statutory trustees of Terra-Dome. The statutory trustees of Terra-Dome were served but made no reply in this action.
In due course, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the damages sought by the Hemans were unambiguously excluded from coverage. The Hemans countered by filing their own motion for summary judgment. The Hemans' motion was sustained by the trial court on January 17, 1990, which found that the insurance policy in question did not unambiguously exclude coverage and that the Hemans were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This appeal subsequently followed. Appellant presents one point on appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for summary judgment and sustaining respondent's motion for summary judgment in that the damages claimed by respondents were clearly and unambiguously excluded by appellant's insurance policy.
The burden is on the insured to show that he is within the terms of the policy and prove, by substantial evidence, that the claim sued upon is within the coverage of the insurance contract. Grossman Iron & Steel Co. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 558 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Mo.App.1977). Where an insurance company claims non-coverage and relies upon a policy exclusion it has the burden of proving that such an exclusion is applicable. Harold S. Schwartz & Assoc., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 705 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Mo.App.1985).
Truck Insurance Exchange relies on language in the policy which reads:
This policy does not apply under:
....
Coverage B-1 only
....
(20) to property damage to the named insured's products arising out of such products or any part of such products;
(21) to property damage to work performed by or on behalf of the named insured arising out of the work or any portion thereof, or out of materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith.
In addition to the listed exclusions, Truck Insurance Exchange offered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bosley v. Kearney R-1 School Dist.
...policy, have the burden of proving that the claim is within the coverage afforded by the policy. See Truck Insurance Exchange v. Heman, 800 S.W.2d 2, 3-4 (Mo.Ct.App.1990). Plaintiffs assert that their negligence claim is covered as "Improper Board Action" under the policy. Pl. Suggestions a......
-
Kostelec v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...the policy was in full force and effect, 7 and that the claimed loss falls within the policy's scope of coverage. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Heman, 800 S.W.2d 2, 3-4 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); see also National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Structural Sys. Tech., Inc., 964 F.2d 759, 761 (8th Ci......
-
Estate of Carroll, In re, No. WD
...confined air travel coverage to passengers, function as exclusions upon which the insurer bears the burden of proof. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Heman, 800 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo.App.1990). They conclude that the allocation to the insurer of the burden of proof on the issue of passenger was legally valid ......
-
Doe v. Lexington Ins. Co.
...coverage must be provided in the remaining policy terms. This common sense principle was well illustrated by Truck Ins. Exch. v. Heman, 800 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Mo.App.1990), where the court held that the parties' decision not to include an optional additional exclusion in an insurance policy did n......