Insurance: False-Pretense Coverage-‘Acquired’ Vehicle

Listen to this article

Where a car buyer challenged the grant of summary judgment to its insurer on the buyer’s claim brought under the false-pretense coverage clause of its policy, the trial court properly found that the claim was not covered because the buyer, a victim of fraud, never obtained possession or control of the purchased vehicle, so it was not an “acquired vehicle” under the policy.

Ambiguity

Dissenting opinion by Page, J. “I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company (‘Zurich’) against Exotic Motors on their claim for False Pretense Coverage because the term ‘acquiring’ as used in the insurance policy is ambiguous.”

Judgment is affirmed.

Exotic Motors v. Zurich American Insurance Co. (MLW No. 74670/Case No. ED108090 – 20 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Odenwald, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Wallach, J. (Thomas R. Kissell for appellant) (Brian E. McGovern and Anthony W. Hafner for respondent).