Missouri Injury Lawyers Blog

Yesterday the Associated Press reported on the fourth quarter reports filed by Insurer Travelers Cos last month. Travelers lobbied Congress, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the White House and the Treasury Department.

The filings state that they spent $1.66 million dollars lobbying for its interests on issues such as global warming, workers compensation, and consumer protection rights. They also lobbied bankruptcy issues, asbestos legislation, and the National Insurance Consumer Protection Plan.

Travelers' lobbying expenses in the fourth quarter more than doubled what they spent in the third quarter. In 2008 fourth quarter, they spent $1.43 million.

A recent decision by the Missouri Supreme Court in Karscig v. McConville and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, handed down on January 12, 2010, seems to have concluded that if the liable party is insured under more than one liability policy, that in addition to the coverage provided by the primary policy covering the motor vehicle involved, additional liability policies may be stacked up to the minimum limits required by Missouri's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The Missouri MVFRL requires limits of liability of $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per accident. Multiple policies should always be examined in each case to determine if the facts might provide for additional coverages available to a seriously injured party.

In a case handed down last week, the Missouri Supreme Court sent a clear message to the insurance company defendant--that the insurance company is responsible for using clear, unambiguous language in their insurance policies. If the insurance company fails to use language that an ordinary person of average abilities would understand, then any ambiguity is construed in favor of the person who is insured under the policy. The case is Burns v. Smith and Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company of Kansas, (Mo banc SC90041, Jan. 26, 2010)

Eric Burns recovered a judgment in excess of $2 million against Lynn Smith for damages he received when a weld that Mr. Smith had placed on a cement mixer failed, causing the truck to explode and seriously injure its driver, Mr. Burns. Mr. Smith was insured under a policy of insurance issued by Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company. Farmers denied coverage, claiming that language contained within a policy exclusion for "business pursuits" precluded insurance coverage under the policy. Although the insurance company argued strongly that the word "and" sometimes means "or" and should be read that way in their policy, the Supreme Court wasn't persuaded. In a 7-0 ruling, the court stated that at best, accepting Farmers' argument would mean only that the use of the word "and" is sometimes ambiguous and was in this case.

It is well settled Missouri law that any such ambiguity must be construed against the insurance company.

Continue reading "Missouri Supreme Court Continues to Hold Insurance Company Responsible for Clear Policy Language" »

In first party claims, if a party is injured and collects against an insurance company, the settling insurance company may claim subrogation pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute Section 379.203.4 to any amounts that the injured person may recover.

While such language is still being included in releases by insurance companies this language is not lawful. In Missouri, an insurer who satisfies its liability for uninsured motorist coverage have subrogation rights only to claims by the insured against the uninsured motorist. While subrogation rights are allowed under the law to prevent unjust enrichment, insurers may not unjustly enrich themselves by extending their rights beyond the uninsured motorist carrier.

It is critically important for people dealing with insurance companies to understand the law involved so that the insurance company does not take advantage of the claimant.

Protect yourself by consulting with an attorney experienced in insurance law to protect your rights. The attorneys at Tatlow, Gump, Faiella & Wheelan, LLC have considerable experience in the field of insurance law. If you have an insurance problem, contact us for a free consultation.

Underinsured motorist coverage typically provides coverage if someone is injured in an automobile collision caused by someone who does not have enough liability coverage to cover the damages to the injured party. Unlike the requirements for uninsured motorist coverage, Missouri statutes do not mandate underinsured motorist coverage. Therefore, the amount of coverage available to an injured party is determined by the contract of insurance entered between the insurance company and the consumer.

Insurance companies are required to write policies that are clear and unambiguous. The policies should be construed so that an "ordinary person of average understanding" could reasonably interpret the policy and understand the coverage it provides. If the insurance policy is ambiguous and confusing to the average consumer, the courts will interpret the policy language to provide the most possible coverage for the consumer.

That is exactly what happened in the recent cased handed down by the Missouri Supreme Court in Richie v. Allied Property & Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. SC90085 (Mo banc Nov. 17, 2009). The injured party was hurt while riding in a vehicle he did not own. One clause of the insurance policy provided that his underinsured motorist coverage was "excess" if he was injured in a non-owned vehicle. However, another clause in the policy conflicted with this provision and seemed to not allow the coverage. The Supreme Court determined that the policy, when read as a whole, was ambiguous and confusing to the average consumer. Because insurance companies are required to write clear insurance policy provisions, the court ruled in favor of the insured and against the insurance company. The injured party was able to collect nderinsured motorist coverage that he had paid for on multiple vehicles because he was injured in a non-owned vehicle and the insurance policy was unclear.

If you are injured in an automobile collision and think that you may have insurance coverage, but your insurance company denies your claim, you should seek competent legal advice. The attorneys at Tatlow, Gump, Faiella and Wheelan, LLC, have considerable experience representing injured consumers who have purchased insurance coverage to protect themselves financially in the event of an accident, but the insurance company denies their claim. We understand your situation and will work closely with you to evaluate your coverage and determine the best course of action for your situation.

Insurance companies make a lot of money because they increase premium prices and deductibles and then reduce liability coverage wherever they can. Many policyholders and claimants report abusive and unfair behavior by insurance companies.

There are various ways in which insurance companies try to use their financial strength and knowledge to their own advantage. For instance sometimes insurance company adjusters attempt to pressure claimants into speedy and unfair settlements. In one case a man who could not read, but had been involved in an automobile accident and had suffered injuries was offered a settlement release for his approval and signature. Even though he was told orally that the check he received at the time of the release was only one of several payments to come, the release indicated it was a full release of the at fault driver and a full and final settlement for the payment in the check given at the time of the release.

Unfortunately, for the poor illiterate man, the court was unwilling to undo the release because the adjuster testified that he had explained at length that the amount of the single payment was for a full release, which directly contradicted the statements of the illiterate man. In the face of a signed release and conflicting testimony the court was unwilling to set aside the release.

Make sure that you protect yourself from unfair insurance company tactics. If you have been in an automobile collision resulting in injuries make sure that you have adequate representation, and do not sign anything until you have sought appropriate legal advice.

As we look back at the terrible events of September 11, 2001, we are painfully aware of how quickly our circumstances can change. Even in Mid-Missouri, our peaceful, secure lives can be turned upside down through events and actions over which we have little or no control. Unfortunately, it doesn't take an act of terrorism for this to occur.

Accidents occur without warning. A driver is inattentive and causes serious injury or death. Safety measures are ignored at work, and the breadwinner of the family is no longer able to work.

Are you and your family protected financially if disaster occurs? It is imperative that you carry the right types of insurance and adequate amounts of coverage to protect your loved ones in the event you are seriously injured or killed. Remember, the person who causes your injury may not have adequate insurance to pay for your damages. It is equally important to carry sufficient liability coverage to protect your assets in the event you cause injury to another person.

Many people are confused about the types of insurance coverage needed or how much insurance they might need. In future posts, I will attempt to shed some light on the various insurance coverages available.

Continue reading "Adequate Insurance for Financial Catastrophe" »