Download PDF - Goodmans

Upon transfer of the case back to the Court of Appeals for review of the
Commission’s award amount, the Court affirmed the award in Henry Mikel v.
Pott Industries/St. Louis Ship, 910 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1995).
Missouri Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Brown, 900 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct.
App. W.D. 1995). The proper venue for a declaratory judgment
action against the Missouri Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty
Association (MIGA) is not the site of the liquidation proceeding of the
insurance company whose policy is at issue. The proper venue for a suit
against an unincorporated association such as MIGA is governed by RSMo
§508.040, the general corporate venue statute. That statute provides that
venue is only proper in the county where the cause of action accrued, or in
the county the corporation has an office or agent. Here, both the office and
agent are located in St. Louis County, therefore that shall be the proper
venue.
Missouri Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Petrolite Corp., 918 S.W.2d 869
(Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1996). Defendant Petrolite was insured under a
commercial catastrophe policy issued by now‐insolvent Integrity Insurance
Co., which provided for coverage of $5 million per occurrence, $5 million
annual aggregate, with a retained limit of $10,000. When a former employee
sued Petrolite for a discrimination claim, MIGA provided the defense and
settled with the employee for $11,000. MIGA then sought reimbursement of
the $10,000 retained limit under the Integrity policy from Petrolite. Petrolite
was sued a second time for age discrimination by another employee. MIGA
withdrew its defense of Petrolite after the court awarded substantial
damages to the plaintiff in the second case because it claimed that the
damages would not have been covered under the Integrity policy because it
was an “intentional act.”
On appeal, the court found that the Integrity policy was ambiguous with
regard to the coverage of intentional torts, and therefore construed it in
favor of the insured. Moreover, the court held that MIGA was responsible
for actual damages up to the statutory coverage limit plus attorney fees
incurred by an insured of an insolvent carrier in defending a discrimination
claim.
Williams v. Missouri Property & Casualty Guaranty Assoc., 904 S.W.2d 10
(Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1995). Williams was injured when he was struck
by a truck driven by an employee of a trucking company insured by the nowinsolvent
Transit Casualty Company. Williams received $181,987 in worker’s
compensation benefits, and sought the remaining balance of his damages,
$83,491, from the guaranty association statute as a “covered claim.” The
statute, however, has a statutory maximum of $50,000. The court held that
a claimant who received worker’s compensation benefits which were less
than the amount of the damages, but more than the statutory maximum
recoverable from MIGA, may pursue a “covered claim” against the
association for the difference.
Nebraska Nebraska Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Dobias, 531 S.W.2d 217 (Neb. 1995).
Defendant insureds were insured under a health policy issued by primary
insurer, who refused to pay certain medical expenses. After obtaining a
judgment against the primary insurer, the insureds attempted to collect, but
the primary insurer had been reorganized and eventually became insolvent.
Insureds filed a claim with the Plaintiff Guaranty Association, who paid for
the primary claim but refused to pay interest, costs, and attorney fees. The
Supreme Court held that insurer was not liable for interest, costs, and
attorney’s fees awarded on the earlier judgment. The Court noted that