 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stockley5/24/2005
State Farm Automobile Insurance Company appeals the judgment declaring that its policy covers claims against Joseph Stockley arising from his use of a baggage tug on the tarmac at the airport. We reverse.
I. BACKGROUND
Joseph Stockley was a baggage handler for Trans World Airlines. He used a four-wheeled vehicle called a tug to transport baggage in the tarmac area at Lambert St. Louis International Airport. While operating the tug, Stockley struck and killed another TWA employee, and the decedent's family filed a wrongful death claim against Stockley. The State Farm policy covering Stockley's personal car extends liability coverage to accidents arising from his use of a non-owned car. "Car" is defined in the policy as a "land motor vehicle with four or more wheels, which is designed for use mainly on public roads." State Farm filed the instant petition, seeking a declaration that the policy provides no coverage for Stockley's use of the tug because the tug was not designed for use mainly on public roads. After a bench trial, the court concluded that the tug was designed for use on the airport tarmac, which is a public road, and entered judgment declaring that the policy covered the tug.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof
Generally, we review court-tried cases under the standards set forth in Murphy v. Carron and will affirm the judgment unless it is against the weight of the evidence, it is not supported by substantial evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). "In a court-tried declaratory judgment action, however, interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law, and the trial court receives no deference where resolution of the controversy is a question of law." Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Medrano , 83 S.W.3d 632, 637 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002).
Only if an ambiguity within the policy necessitates a factual determination will the standards set forth in Murphy govern. Id. Here, neither party argues that the policy is ambiguous, and our review is de novo. See id. Moreover, the underlying facts are not in dispute in this case, and, thus, application of the insurance policy to those facts is also a matter of law. See Hunt v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. , 26 S.W.3d 341, 342 (Mo .App. E.D. 2000).
The burden of proving coverage is on the insured, despite the insured's denomination as defendant in a declaratory judgment action. Medrano , 83 S.W.3d at 638. Stockley contends that State Farm had the burden of proof. He, and the trial court, cite to Safeco Insurance Company of America, Inc. v. Wood , in which this Court recited the well-known principle of law that " hen an insurance company seeks to escape coverage based on policy exclusions, the burden is on it to establish the applicability of the exclusion." 948 S.W.2d 182, 183 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). But this case involves policy definitions , not policy exclusions. The policy in this case extends liability coverage to non-owned cars, and, thus, coverage depends on the definition of " car" in the policy. The issue here is not whether an exclusion in the policy negates otherwise applicable coverage for the claims against Stockley. Rather, the question is whether there is coverage in the first place. It is Stockley's burden to prove coverage. See Universal Reinsurance Corp. v. Greenleaf, 824 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (rejecting similar reliance on law regarding insurer's burden to prove exclusion; where issue is coverage under policy definitions, not applicability of exclusion, insured bears burden of proof); see also Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Leiendecker , 962 S.W.2d 446
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.
|
|