Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-15-2024
Case Style:
Lana Sloan v. Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri
Case Number: 18PO-CC00011
Judge: James Andrew Hackett
Court: 30th Judicial Circuit Court, Polk County, Missouri
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Monte Paul Clithero
Description:
Bolivar, Missouri insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff.
Joseph Webb owns residential property insured by Farm Bureau. Webb leased the insured premises to Jesse Clark, who owns a dog. Webb neither owns nor cares for the dog. Clark's dog bit Sloan while she was walking on a public roadway adjacent to but not on the insured premises. Sloan made a claim under the medical payments provision of the Farm Bureau policy, on which Joseph Webb was the only named insured.
The Farm Bureau policy provides coverage for medical payments to non-insureds when such person sustains bodily injury:
1. On an insured premises with the permission of any insured, or
2. Elsewhere, if the bodily injury:
a. Arises out of a condition on the insured premises;
b. Is caused by the activities of you, or your relatives if you are a person;
c. Is caused by a residence employee in the course of employment by you, or your relatives if you are a person; or
d. Is caused by an animal other than livestock owned by or in the care of you, or your relatives if you are a person.
Farm Bureau denied Sloan's claim. She filed suit, alleging, as relevant here, that Farm Bureau was liable under § 375.420[1] for its vexatious refusal to pay her. Farm Bureau secured summary judgment in its favor. This court reversed, finding the statement of uncontroverted material facts did not support summary judgment. Sloan v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 601 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Mo.App. 2020).
After remand, both Sloan and Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment on the vexatious refusal to pay claim. The only dispute on summary judgment was the applicability of section 2.a, that is, whether Sloan's injuries, which occurred off the insured premises, arose out of a condition on the insured premises. The circuit court denied Sloan's motion and granted Farm Bureau's motion. That court found the dog was not a condition on the insured premises, the loss was not covered under the policy, and Sloan, after an adequate time for discovery, could not prove the dog was a condition on the insured premises.[2]...
Outcome:
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: