Waltz v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., No. KCD

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBefore SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and TURNAGE; TURNAGE
Citation526 S.W.2d 340
PartiesJane Marie WALTZ et al., Appellants, v. CAMERON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. 26839.
Docket NumberNo. KCD
Decision Date31 July 1975

Page 340

526 S.W.2d 340
Jane Marie WALTZ et al., Appellants,
v.
CAMERON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
No. KCD 26839.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.
July 31, 1975.

Page 341

Michael J. Albano, Graham, Paden, Welch, Martin & Tittle, Independence, for appellants.

George T. O'Laughlin, Thomas M. Moore, Miller & O'Laughlin, P.C., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and TURNAGE, J.

TURNAGE, Judge.

Plaintiff Jane Waltz (Plaintiff) sought to recover from defendant damages under the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy issued by defendant. Plaintiff was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by Wayne Pettit, which was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the defendant, when she was injured as a result of a collision between such automobile and another automobile which was uninsured.

Plaintiff alleged in her petition she was covered under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy defendant issued on the Pettit automobile, or in the alternative, defendant failed to obtain a written rejection of the uninsured motorist coverage from Pettit. The petition further alleged facts tending to show plaintiff's injuries to have been due to the negligence of the uninsured automobile driver.

Plaintiff filed interrogatories directed to defendant to obtain a copy of the insurance policy defendant issued on the Pettit automobile. Defendant submitted a copy of the policy which it stated was in effect on the Pettit automobile at the time of plaintiff's injury. This policy contained the following provision with respect to the uninsured motorist coverage: '(c) With respect to the insurance under coverage H the unqualified word 'insured' means the first named natural person and not a corporation, firm or partnership, and, while residents of the same household, the spouse of the first named natural person and the relatives of either.' Defendant then filed request for admissions of plaintiff and her husband, who joined as a plaintiff for his loss of services claim. As a result of these requests, plaintiff and her husband stated they did not have sufficient knowledge to admit defendant issued a policy of insurance to Pettit and stated to the best of their knowledge there was insurance on the automobile in which plaintiff was riding but they had to rely on what the driver of such automobile told them since they had never seen a policy. Plaintiffs further admitted neither of them was a relative of Pettit or his wife, that neither was a resident of the household of Pettit, either prior to or subsequent to plaintiff's injury.

Page 342

Plaintiff filed a request for admissions directed to the defendant asking the defendant to admit a policy of insurance was issued to Pettit by it and that Pettit did not give defendant a written statement rejecting uninsured motorist coverage. The request further sought to establish the automobile plaintiff was riding in was covered by defendant's insurance policy. No particular coverage was suggested in this request. The defendant did not deny these requests and they stood admitted.

Thereafter defendant filed its motion for summary judgment stating there was no material issue of fact in that it had been established that plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned by Pettit, that such automobile was insured under a policy issued by the defendant, and that neither of the plaintiffs was a member of Pettit's household at the time of the injury. This motion was supported by the affidavit of defendant's claim manager which stated the copy of the policy issued to Pettit was attached thereto. By a deposition of defendant's claim manager it was established the copy of the insurance policy defendant stated was issued to Pettit was the only form of policy issued by the defendant covering the period when plaintiff was injured with respect to the definition of insured under the uninsured motorist provision.

In response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs Jane Waltz and her husband filed an affidavit stating they did not have sufficient knowledge with which to admit or deny the genuineness of the copy of the policy submitted by defendant, and further they did not have any means to secure information or knowledge concerning the policy because Pettit and his wife told them the original policy had been destroyed. Plaintiffs further caused an affidavit to be filed by Pettit in which he stated defendant had issued its policy to him and his wife covering the period during which plaintiff was injured, and stating he did not recall ever seeing a full and complete copy of the policy. This affidavit further stated it was the 'understanding' of Pettit that defendant's policy provided uninsured motorist coverage for him and the occupants of his car and he did not recall anyone...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Francis-Newell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, FRANCIS-NEWEL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 1 Diciembre 1992
    ...that Eleanor Francis was not insured under the terms of the uninsured motorist coverage, relied on Waltz v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1975). In Waltz the uninsured motorist coverage was restricted "to the named insured, the spouse of such insured, and the relatives of ei......
  • Hines v. Government Employees Ins. Co., No. 64613
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Agosto 1983
    ...The law does not even require that policies provide any uninsured motorist coverage for occupants. Waltz v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co., 526 S.W.2d 340 The insurance company and the owner of the automobile should not be disabled from entering into a contract which confines the uninsured mo......
  • Cano v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 64639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Agosto 1983
    ...in the vehicle owner's home do not have to be named as insured in automobile liability policies. Waltz v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co., 526 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1975), holds that an occupant who is not an owner does not have to be named as an insured. Otto v. Farmers Insurance Co., 558 S.W.2d......
  • Cherry v. City of Hayti Heights, No. 59950
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Marzo 1978
    ...if appropriate, shall be entered against him.' " Hurwitz v. Kohm, 516 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Mo.App.1974); See Waltz v. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo.App.1975). The foregoing applies in the case before us. Additionally, defendants, by filing the affidavit of Mayor Humes (which al......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Francis-Newell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, FRANCIS-NEWEL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 1 Diciembre 1992
    ...that Eleanor Francis was not insured under the terms of the uninsured motorist coverage, relied on Waltz v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1975). In Waltz the uninsured motorist coverage was restricted "to the named insured, the spouse of such insured, and the relatives of ei......
  • Hines v. Government Employees Ins. Co., No. 64613
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Agosto 1983
    ...The law does not even require that policies provide any uninsured motorist coverage for occupants. Waltz v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co., 526 S.W.2d 340 The insurance company and the owner of the automobile should not be disabled from entering into a contract which confines the uninsured mo......
  • Cano v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 64639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Agosto 1983
    ...in the vehicle owner's home do not have to be named as insured in automobile liability policies. Waltz v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co., 526 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1975), holds that an occupant who is not an owner does not have to be named as an insured. Otto v. Farmers Insurance Co., 558 S.W.2d......
  • Cherry v. City of Hayti Heights, No. 59950
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Marzo 1978
    ...if appropriate, shall be entered against him.' " Hurwitz v. Kohm, 516 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Mo.App.1974); See Waltz v. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo.App.1975). The foregoing applies in the case before us. Additionally, defendants, by filing the affidavit of Mayor Humes (which al......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT