Where a man, who rented a car from a Kansas office hit a pedestrian in Missouri, challenged the denial of coverage, arguing that Missouri law applied to make the relevant “contingent rentee” provision invalid, the judgment is affirmed because the policy provisions cited did not provide an effective choice of law, so under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Kansas was the principal location of risk, so the trial court did not err in finding that Kansas law applied, allowing for the exclusion of liability coverage to persons renting an insured vehicle.
Judgment is affirmed.
Forsman v. Burgess (MLW No. 71536/Case No. WD80907 – 10 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Hardwick, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Garrett III, J. (Tim E. Dollar, Thomas J. Hershewe and Rick D. Holtsclaw, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant) (Bradley R. Hansmann, Russell F. Watters and Travis S. McDonald, St. Louis, for respondent).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)