The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments.  Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.



SC95843
Owners Insurance Company v. Vicki Craig and Chris Craig
Greene County
Effect of setoff provision on underinsured motorist coverage
Listen to the oral argument: SC95843.mp3
Owners Insurance was represented during arguments by Russell Watters of Brown & James PC in St. Louis; the Craigs were represented by Jeffrey Bauer of Strong-Garner-Bauer PC in Springfield.

Vicki Craig was injured in a March 2014 automobile accident when the vehicle she was driving was struck by another vehicle while she was stopped at a red light. The at-fault driver was insured by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company under a policy limiting coverage to $50,000 per person. The damages Craig and her husband sustained due to Craig’s injuries exceeded $300,000, so they filed a claim for the full amount of their Owners Insurance Company policy’s underinsured motorist coverage of $250,000. Owners Insurance paid the Craigs $200,000 and filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the policy’s setoff provision permitted Owners Insurance to deduct from the $250,000 underinsured motorist limit the $50,000 Shelter had paid the Craigs on behalf of the at-fault driver. The parties stipulated as to most facts not related to the coverage issue and filed competing motions for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial). The circuit court found the policy was ambiguous due to the interplay between the policy’s declaration page, limiting underinsured motorist coverage to $250,000 per person, and the setoff language. The circuit court granted judgment in favor of the Craigs, finding Owners Insurance owed them the disputed $50,000. Owners Insurance appeals.

This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether the policy clearly and unambiguously permitted Owners Insurance to reduce the amount it owed the Craigs for their underinsured motorist claim by the $50,000 Shelter paid to the Craigs on behalf of the at-fault driver. Related issues involve whether the policy’s declarations constitute a grant of coverage or render the setoff provisions unenforceable and whether allowing the offset would result in Owners Insurance never paying the amount of coverage it sold to its insureds.
 
SC95843_Owners_Insurance_Co._brief
SC95843_Craigs_brief
SC95843_Owners_Insurance_Co_reply_brief


SC95844
Jeffrey D. Swadley, Chelsea S. Swadley and Brooke L. Swadley v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company
Jasper County
Availability of underinsured motorist coverage
Listen to the oral argument: SC95844.mp3
Shelter was represented during arguments by Rachel Riso of Baird Lightner Millsap in Springfield; the Swadleys were represented by Lauren Peterson of the Hershewe Law Firm PC in Joplin.

Angela Swadley was killed in March 2013 as a result of a multiple-vehicle collision that began when a tractor trailer hit Swadley’s automobile while its driver was attempting to change lanes. The insurance company insuring the at-fault driver and vehicle paid Swadley’s survivors approximately $823,874 from the $1 million liability policy and the balance of the liability policy to the other injured driver. The Swadleys then filed a claim for the full amount of Swadley’s underinsured motorist coverage under her Shelter Mutual Insurance Company policy. Shelter denied the claim on the ground that the at-fault driver was not underinsured. The Swadleys sued Shelter, alleging they were entitled to the available policy limit of $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. Shelter stipulated that the Swadleys had sustained at least $923,874 in damages and does not contest that they received insufficient funds from the at-fault driver’s insurer to pay all their damages. Shelter contested only whether the Swadleys were entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under the policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial) to the Swadleys, holding the underinsured motorist endorsement in the policy was misleading and ambiguous and ordering Shelter to pay $100,000 to the Swadleys. Shelter appeals.

This appeal presents one primary question for the Court – whether the Shelter policy made underinsured motorist coverage available to the Swadleys. Related issues include whether the tractor trailer constituted an “underinsured motor vehicle” under the policy; whether the policy or its underinsured motorist endorsement was misleading or ambiguous; and the effect on this case of prior appellate decisions regarding underinsured motorist provisions.

The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys filed a brief as a friend of the Court. The association argues the policy is ambiguous with respect to its underinsured motorist coverage and should be construed to provide the coverage listed on the declarations page.

SC95844_Shelter_Insurance_brief
SC95844_Swadleys_brief
SC95844_Shelter_Insurance_reply_brief

SC95844_MATA_amicus_brief


SC95719
State of Missouri v. Phillip Douglass and Jennifer M. Gaulter
Jackson County
Invalidation of search warrant and suppression of items seized in search
Listen to the oral argument: SC95719.mp3
The state was represented during arguments by Rachel Flaster of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City; Douglass and Gaulter were represented by Clayton Gillette of the Gillette Law Office LLC in Kansas City.

A woman met with Phillip Douglass and Jennifer Gaulter in a Kansas City hotel room before calling her boyfriend to take her home. The next morning, while the woman was at work, she received a text message from Gaulter advising that the woman had left her bag in the room and that Gaulter would leave the bag at the hotel’s front desk. When the woman returned home from work, she found that her apartment had been broken into and that certain items – including designer purses, a laptop and jewelry – had been stolen. She called the hotel and asked an employee to look in her bag for keys; the employee told her there were no keys in the bag. The woman then texted Gaulter about the theft and missing keys; Gaulter did not respond. When the woman went to the hotel, an employee told her the bag already had been retrieved. Based on information the woman provided, a Kansas City police detective applied for a warrant to search the home shared by Douglass and Gaulter. The warrant had a preprinted section listing five types of items that could be seized, with a box next to each type to denote if there was probable cause to search for and seize that type of item. All five boxes – including the one for “deceased human fetus or corpse, or part thereof” – were checked. The warrant also listed the stolen items. In the search, law enforcement officers seized a laptop, certain purses and women’s accessories. The state subsequently charged Douglass and Gaulter with second-degree burglary and stealing property valued between $500 and $25,000. Douglass and Gaulter moved to suppress the evidence seized in the search, challenging the warrant based in part on the check next to the box for “deceased human fetus or corpse.” The detective testified about why he had checked all five boxes, even though he had no reason to believe the home would contain a dead body or part of one. The circuit court sustained the motions to suppress, finding the warrant was invalid because the detective intentionally checked the box stating probable cause existed to search for a “deceased human fetus or corpse, or part thereof” when he knew that statement to be false. The circuit court excluded all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant as a result. The state appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court should have severed the warrant into its parts and stricken only the “corpse clause” that was not supported by probable cause. A related issue involves whether the state and federal constitutions permit such “redaction” of an invalid element of a search warrant, especially if that element was included in bad faith, and whether bad faith exists here. Another question involves whether the detective’s conduct in checking the box pertaining to dead bodies was misconduct warranting application of the exclusionary rule to suppress the evidence seized under the warrant.

SC95719_State_brief
SC95719_Douglass_and_Gaulter_brief
SC95719_State_reply_brief


SC95877
State of Missouri v. Jeffrey L. Bruner
Jasper County
Challenge to refusal to submit self-defense instruction to jury
Listen to the oral argument: SC95877.mp3
Bruner was represented during arguments by Ellen Flottman of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Rachel Flaster of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

The state charged Jeffrey Bruner with first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the November 2013 shooting death of a man who was dating Bruner’s estranged wife. Bruner confronted the couple after they left a Joplin movie theater following a date. The wife reportedly told Bruner she did not need his permission to date, and the man she was with noted that the wife had moved out of the marital home. Bruner shot the man during an ensuing altercation, and the man died of multiple gunshot wounds. At trial, Bruner presented evidence that he was suffering from an acute stress disorder at the time of the shooting, that he had taken the gun because he was smaller than the other man and that he had shot the other man in self-defense. Bruner proposed the jury be given a self-defense instruction; the circuit court refused the proffered instruction. During closing arguments, the state argued Bruner acted out of anger rather than fear. The jury found Bruner guilty as charged and recommended sentences of life in prison without parole for murder and five years in prison for armed criminal action. The circuit court overruled Bruner’s motion for a new trial, entered judgment in accordance with the verdict and sentenced Bruner to serve the prison terms concurrently. Bruner appeals.

This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court violated Bruner’s constitutional rights in not instructing the jury regarding self-defense. Related issues involve whether Bruner presented sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that Bruner was not the initial aggressor and had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to protect himself.

SC95877_Bruner_brief
SC95877_State_brief
SC95877_Bruner_reply_brief
 

Supreme Court - Dockets