Missouri Cases on Insurance Law

• Loyd v. Williams, et al. (October 14, 2008) - Stephen B. Loyd was injured when he "laid down" his motorcycle in an attempt to avoid a collision with another vehicle.  Loyd owned the motorcycle that he was operating, but it was not a described vehicle under Mr. Loyd's policy of insurance issued by State Automobile Property & Casualty Company ("State Auto").  Mr. Loyd sought coverage under State Auto's underinsured motorist coverage, but State Auto denied coverage based upon an exclusion for injuries sustained while occupying an owned vehicle not insured under State Auto's policy.  Mr. Loyd argued that he was not occupying the motorcycle at the time of his injury since he separated from the motorcycle during the accident.  The trial court granted summary judgment to State Auto and, on appeal, the court of appeals affirmed.  In an apparent case of first impression, the court held that, although Mr. Loyd was not physically occupying the motorcycle when he was injured, his separation from the motorcycle during the accident did not mean he was not occupying the motorcycle for purposes of the exclusion. 

• Foremost Signature Insurance Company v. Montgomery, et al. (October 21, 2008) - Appellant Charlene Cameron was injured when defendant Mark Montgomery was starting his F-150 truck for a prospective buyer and the truck lurched forward striking Charlene Cameron.  Respondent Foremost Signature Insurance Company issued a homeowner's policy to the Montgomerys which excluded coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership or use of a land motor vehicle, with an exemption to the coverage exclusion for a motor vehicle not subject to motor vehicle registration because it was kept in "dead storage" on the premises.  The Camerons sued and Montgomerys for the injuries to Charlene Cameron and Foremost filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that the Foremost policy did not cover Charlene Cameron's injuries and that Foremost did not have a duty to defend the Montgomerys under the homeowner's policy.  The trial court granted Foremost's petition for declaratory judgment.  HELD: The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Montgomery's truck was not in "dead storage" because Montgomery was attempting to start the truck to demonstrate that it was operational and a functioning motor vehicle for a potential purchaser at the time of the accident.  The court reasoned that the purpose of the Montgomerys' homeowner policy was to cover he insureds' home and premises and any personal liability sustained thereon, with specific exclusions for the ownership, maintenance or use of motor vehicles, which are normally covered by automobile insurance policies.  The mere fact that the parties disagreed to the interpretation of the "dead storage" clause did not make the language ambiguous.