 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Auto Club Family Insurance Company v. Jacobsen6/6/2000
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Teitelman, P.J., and Mooney, J., concur.
Opinion:
The plaintiffs, Auto Club Family Insurance Co. and Auto Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (collectively, "Auto Club"), appeal from summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Richard K. Jacobsen ("Jacobsen"). The underlying action was one for a declaratory judgment that Auto Club had no duty to defend Jacobsen against certain causes of action brought against him by his former employer, its parent company, and its franchisor. We reverse and remand with instructions.
Jacobsen was hired by St. Louis Car Care, Inc. ("St. Louis Car Care") in 1985. St. Louis Car Care was a franchisee of Jiffy Lube International, Inc. ("Jiffy Lube"), and Jacobsen was hired to lead the development of Jiffy Lube Service Centers in the St. Louis area. Because Jacobsen would acquire confidential information in the course of his employment, he entered into a confidentiality and non-competition agreement with Jiffy Lube.
HAS Holdings, Inc. ("HAS Holdings") is the sole shareholder of Heartland Automotive Service ("Heartland Automotive"), one of the largest franchisees of Jiffy Lube in the United States. In 1995, HAS Holdings purchased substantially all of St. Louis Car Care's assets. Shortly thereafter, Jacobsen became Vice President of Operations of Heartland Automotive and signed confidentiality and non-competition agreements with HAS Holdings, Heartland Automotive and, again, Jiffy Lube.
On June 24, 1998, HAS Holdings, Heartland Automotive, and Jiffy Lube brought a six-count suit against Jacobsen (the "HAS Holdings suit") seeking injunctive relief and damages for breaches of the confidentiality and non-competition agreements (Counts I-III), breach of fiduciary duty (Count IV), violation of the Missouri Trade Secrets Act (Count V), and unfair competition (Count VI). On July 20, 1998, Jacobsen notified Auto Club of the HAS Holdings suit and demanded that Auto Club provide a defense pursuant to a homeowner's policy ("Homeowner's Policy") and a personal catastrophe and excess liability policy ("Excess Policy") issued to Jacobsen by Auto Club. Auto Club denied coverage under both policies, forcing Jacobsen to hire his own attorney.
More than two months later, Auto Club elected to provide Jacobsen's defense against the HAS Holdings suit under a reservation of rights. The attorney hired by Auto Club entered an appearance on October 2, 1998, and met with Jacobsen for the first time to discuss the suit on October 19, 1998. In the meantime, Jacobsen had incurred $52,563.00 in attorney's fees, the reasonableness of which has never been disputed. The HAS Holdings suit settled in April, 1999, to which Auto Club contributed $15,000.00 on behalf of Jacobsen.
Auto Club filed the underlying declaratory judgment action in November, 1998. Jacobsen counterclaimed, seeking the $52,563.00 in legal fees he incurred in providing his own defense. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Auto Club's motion and granted Jacobsen's motion, finding that Jacobsen was entitled to a defense of the HAS Holdings suit under the plain language of the Excess Policy or, alternatively, because the relevant provisions of the Excess Policy were ambiguous in that regard and should therefore be construed against the insurer, Auto Club. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Jacobsen in the amount of $52,563.00. This appeal by Auto Club follows.
Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judg
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|