Insurance Law: Denial Of Coverage-Fraudulent Misrepresentation-Tortious Interference

(1)Where  a car buyer challenged the denial of insurance coverage on her claim that an auto dealer committed fraudulent misrepresentation, the judgment is affirmed in part because the policy unambiguously did not provide coverage for the intentional-fraudulent-misrepresentation claim, and the court also did not err in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the buyer’s tortious interference with a business-expectancy claim, but the judgment is reversed in part because the court erred in finding that the policy covered the buyer’s claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and by excluding testimony from an attorney for the dealer to assist the jury in determining the comparative reprehensibility of the dealer’s actions.

(2)Where a modified punitive-damages instruction removed the jury’s obligation to consider the comparative reprehensibility of an auto dealer’s actions in an action brought by a buyer, the instruction was improper and constituted reversible error, but the court did not err in denying the dealer’s proposed verdict form because there is no requirement that the jury be asked to affirmatively state that the conduct made the defendant liable for punitive damages.

Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Lewellen v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. (MLW No. 72742/Case No. WD81171 – 52 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Hardwick, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Clay County, Flook, J. (Douglass F. Noland and Kate E. Noland, Liberty for appellant) (John G. Schultz and Michael W. Shunk, Kansas City, Missouri; Brian E. McGovern and Andrew M. Lammert, Town and Country; and Timothy J. Ahrenhoesterbaeumer, Chesterfield, for respondent).