• $9.00

Descripción de editorial

Plaintiff (to whom, as the widow of Ernest F. Wilson, letters of administration had been refused under V.A.M.S. §
473.090) instituted this action on June 23, 1958, by the filing of her petition in which she sought to reform (by removal
of the name of A. C. Scott as an insured) Policy No. 114-81627 issued by defendant, motors Insurance Corporation, which afforded
$50 deductible collision insurance coverage on a 1957 Pontiac automobile purchased by Wilson on October 12, 1957, and being
driven by him at the time of an accident on May 16, 1958, in which the automobile was damaged extensively and Wilson was killed.
Some twenty months after institution of suit, during which period Scott had intervened and a hurrah's nest of twenty pleadings
had been accumulated, the case came on for trial before the court upon plaintiff's first amended petition in two counts (the
first for reformation of the policy and the second for a money judgment thereupon), defendant's answer thereto (in substance
tendering $429.77 as "the exact amount for which defendant would be liable" and praying that the court determine whether plaintiff
or Scott was entitled thereto), and Scott's intervening petition (in substance claiming "one-half of the proceeds" on the
theory that Wilson and Scott had been "joint owners" of the insured automobile). The trial court found that Scott had no interest
in the insured automobile and dismissed his intervening petition; and, Scott not having appealed, that portion of the judgment
stands unassailed and accepted. Moore v. Hoffman, 327 Mo. 852, 867, 39 S.W.2d 339, 344-345(18), 75 A.L.R. 135; Lewis v. Lewis,
354 Mo. 415, 421, 189 S.W.2d 557, 559(1). On plaintiff's claim, the issues were found for her and judgment was entered against
defendant in the sum of $429.77, "the amount of her (plaintiff's) debt and damages." Plaintiff appeals. At the outset of the trial on February 18, 1960, it was stipulated by counsel that "the only issue between * * * plaintiff
and * * * defendant is the measure of damages, or the extent of the damages to the automobile." In her first amended petition
on which she proceeded to trial, plaintiff's theory as to the proper measure of damages was that, "under the terms of said
policy, she is entitled to recover * * * the cost of repairing the damage to said car, or the sum of $600, less the sum of
$50." the insured's retention. Notwithstanding this pleaded theory, plaintiff offered no evidence as to the cost of repairing
the insured automobile but, without objection, introduced opinion evidence that the reasonable market value of the insured
automobile immediately before the accident was $2,000 and immediately thereafter was $500. However, defendant introduced a
repair estimate showing that the cost of repairing the insured automobile would have been $936.21.

Técnicos y profesionales
agosto 21
LawApp Publishers
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc

Más libros de Springfield District Missouri Court of Appeals