Case summaries for June 17 - June 23, 2022
Each week, The Missouri Bar provides links to all hand downs published online during the past seven days by the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Bar has created headings and summaries for each case. Summaries are not part of the opinions of the Court. They have been prepared for the convenience of the reader and should not be quoted or cited.
Appellate | Family | Insurance
No Certification of Immunity Defenses for Appeal
In a wrongful death action, defendants raised the defenses of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine, on which defendant prevailed by partial summary judgment. Circuit court certified that judgment, finding no just reason for delay, but the governing applies only to a judgment that disposes of all a judicial unit: either all claims by or against a party, or a claim sufficiently distinct from remaining claims. That does not include immunity defenses. “[T]he parties' desire for an immediate resolution of the substantive issue presented by this appeal ... is not controlling on the subject of our jurisdiction.”
Bethany J. Kelly vs. Boone County, Missouri and Brandon Wainman
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD84981
Maintenance Amount Must Stand on Evidence
In determining an award of maintenance, a circuit court must calculate the party’s reasonable needs and whether appropriate employment will support those needs. As to part of the respondent’s reasonable needs, the evidence might have supported the circuit court’s calculations, but the circuit court made no calculation as to that part. “If a plaintiff fails to produce sufficient evidence to prove his or her claim and proof appears to be available, the case should be remanded.” Remanded to re-determine maintenance.
In Re the Marriage of LAWRENCE G. DOYLE and CYNTHIA DOYLE LAWRENCE G. DOYLE, Petitioner/Appellant vs. CYNTHIA DOYLE, Respondent/Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37320
Other Insurance Clause Is Unambiguous
Underinsured motorist coverage is “floating” and follows the insured in any vehicle, whether the insured owns it or not, subject to specified limitations. The policy unambiguously determined coverage by whether the insured owns it or not. The policy provided underinsured motorist coverage in a set amount but, for an injury in a vehicle that insured did not own, paid only the difference between that amount and all other collectible underinsured motorist insurance coverage. For insured’s injury, that difference was less than other amounts, so insurer had no liability. The language of an insurance policy is subject to the canons of construction only when that language is ambiguous. In an automobile policy, an Other Insurance clause.
Nationwide Insurance Company of America vs. Matthew P. Six
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD84631