 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer v. Insurance Co. of North America6/29/2001
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Kelly Moorhouse
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Spinden, C.J., and Newton, J., concur.
Appellant Kenneth H. Kramer ("Kramer") brought a suit against his employer, LaFarge Corporation ("LaFarge") and its insurer, Insurance Company of North America ("INA") seeking recovery of damages from an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of INA and LaFarge on the basis of provisions in INA's policy excluding claims by an employee of the insured and a clause requiring corroboration evidence in an uninsured motorist claim where there was no contact with the uninsured vehicle. We find that application of the employee exclusion clause where the injury does not arise from the negligence of the employer or another employee is not authorized by law. We further find that the policy requirement of corroboration evidence before an uninsured motorist claim can be brought in a no-contact accident contravenes the policy of Missouri's uninsured motorist statute. The summary judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
Kramer was injured in a single-vehicle accident while he was an employee of LaFarge. At the time of the accident, Kramer was driving a cement mixer truck owned by LaFarge, and the truck was insured by a motor vehicle liability policy issued by INA. The parties do not dispute Kramer's claim that the accident occurred because an approaching vehicle crossed the center-line, causing Kramer's vehicle to overturn due to his attempt to avoid a collision. There was no physical contact between the mixer truck and the other vehicle, and neither the other vehicle nor its driver has been identified. In the accident, Kramer sustained injuries to his neck, back, right shoulder, and right arm.
Kramer brought suit against both LaFarge and INA, seeking recovery under the uninsured motorist provisions of LaFarge's motor vehicle liability insurance policy provided by INA. INA and LaFarge filed a joint motion for summary judgment, claiming that the insurance policy contained a coverage exclusion that operated to prevent coverage for injuries to LaFarge's employees. Alternatively, INA and LaFarge argued that Kramer's claim was barred because he could not meet requirements of the policy language necessitating corroboration of the facts of the accident by competent evidence other than Kramer's testimony.
The trial court sustained the motion, and judgment was entered in favor of LaFarge and INA. The trial court's judgment does not set forth the basis or reasoning for the trial court's decision. This appeal follows.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court engages in de novo review of a trial court's entry of summary judgment. Carlton v. Phillips, 926 S.W.2d 8, 10 (Mo. App. 1996). The court must view the facts presented in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Id. If the record, as submitted to the trial court, does not entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law or if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, then the judgment must be reversed. Id. at 10-11. We, therefore, turn to the issues presented by Kramer's appeal of the summary judgment entered against him.
THE EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION CLAUSE
Two points are raised by Kramer in his appeal. Kramer first contends that the trial court incorrectly held that an "employee exclusion" clause within the motor vehicle liability provisions of an insurance policy can bar recovery under the uninsured motorist provisions of that policy. The essence of Kramer's argument is that such an application of the excl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|