Uninsured driver’s damage-limit challenge left unresolved
Scott Lauck//June 28, 2023//
The constitutionality of a state law that bars uninsured drivers from recovering noneconomic damages will have to wait for another case.
The Missouri Supreme Court on June 27 declined to address a challenge to the law that plaintiff Susan Bridegan brought, after defendant Gary Turntine ran a red light in Grandview and injured her.
Bridegan won her case at a bench trial and was awarded about $10,000 for her medical bills. But Jackson County Circuit Judge John Torrence said he could not award her any noneconomic damages, citing a 2013 Missouri law that generally bars injured drivers from recovering such damages if they fail to carry state-mandated liability insurance.
According to briefs in the case, Bridegan had purchased a policy from the dealer that protected its financial interest in the vehicle, but it didn’t provide any liability coverage for her.
At oral arguments in March, an attorney for Bridegan argued that the statute violates the Missouri Constitution’s guarantee of the right to have a jury determine damages.
The problem, Chief Justice Paul C. Wilson wrote for the Supreme Court’s six-judge majority, is that Bridegan had agreed to have her case tried by a judge, not a jury.
“In doing so, she waived her constitutional right to a jury trial and is bound by that waiver,” he wrote. “As a result of that waiver, Bridegan necessarily abandoned her claim that [the 2013 law] violated that same right.”
Judge George W. Draper III dissented but did not write separately to explain his reasoning.
Had the court reached the merits, the case could have helped define the limits of lawmakers’ ability to restrict damage awards for injured plaintiffs. Both the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys and the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers had watched it with interest. MATA argued in an amicus brief that the law should be struck down; MODL, joined by several insurance associations, argued that the law was a proper exercise of the legislature’s authority.
The case is Bridegan v. Turntine, SC99700.
Legal Tech
- New dedicated coverage of tech challenges facing law firms and legal departments
- Gemini Legal launches DraftEngine for civil litigation forms
- Lawyers continue to grapple with AI ethical issues
Latest Opinion Digests
- Insurance-Interpleader-Competing Claims to Insurance Proceeds
- Employer-Employee-Discrimination-Hostile Work Environment
- Criminal Law-Rape-Oral and Written Judgments
- Torts-Defamation-Official Immunity
- Real Property-Adverse Possession-Oral Agreement for Sale
- Domestic Relations-Termination of Parental Rights-Parental Unfitness
- Criminal Law-Violation of Order of Protection-Scope of Cross-Examination
Top stories
- New dedicated coverage of tech challenges facing law firms and legal departments
- Parity Act claim against insurer for child’s treatment survives motion to dismiss
- ABA opinion addresses client restrictions in engagement letters
- U.S. District Court allows plaintiffs to amend complaint alleging fraud
- AAA Insurance faces $21.5M bad faith verdict in Clay County
- Legal Limelight: Meghan S. Largent champions landowners in takings cases
- Supreme Court rejects bright-line rule on FAA worker exemption
- 2026 Unsung Legal Heroes: Publisher’s Letter, honorees





