There was no ambiguity as to when a Named Driver Exclusion was effective where driver's mother signed the exclusion, and there was no ambiguity regarding which company issued the exclusion even though four insurance companies were listed at the bottom of the endorsement page.  American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent v. Otis St. Clair, Personal Representative for the Estate of Montrell St. Clair, and Anastasia McNutt, Appellants.  No. 92492 (Mo. App. E.D., September 8, 2009), Odenwald, P.J.

Montrell St. Clair, deceased, ("Driver") and Anastasia McNutt ("Passenger") were involved in a motor vehicle collision on December 6, 2004 while Driver was driving a vehicle insured by American Family Mutual Insurance Company ("American Family") under a policy issued to Driver's mother.  Passenger's Next Friend filed a lawsuit against Driver and American Family.  American Family filed for declaratory judgment against Appellants, seeking a determination that there was no coverage for Driver's negligence, no duty to defend Driver, and no uninsured motorist benefits available to passenger due to a Named Driver Exclusion that excluded Driver on the insurance policy issued to Driver's mother.  The trial court granted American Family's Motion for Summary Judgment.  Driver's estate and Passenger appealed.

Appellants argued that because American Family issued an initial declarations sheet setting out the Named Driver Exclusion but did not issue declarations sheets for a subsequent policy renewal period the policy was ambiguous and the Named Driver exclusion was not in effect at the time of collision.  Appellants also argued that there was an ambiguity in the policy because the same company that issued the Named Driver Exclusion had not issued the policy.

Held:  The appellate court held that RSMo Section 303.190.4 does not require that a new declarations page be issued for each renewal period.  The court read the policy as a whole and concluded that the policy continued to include the terms of the Named Driver Exclusion that mother had signed and that were set out in the initial declarations sheet since Driver's mother had continued to pay policy premiums without changing or cancelling the policy.  The court also held that there was no ambiguity where the Named Driver Exclusion endorsement stated both "American Family Mutual Insurance Company" and "American Standard Insurance Company.", and two other companies' names, because the policy contained typed provisions, including Driver's mother's policy number, which controlled and were consistent with the declarations page setting out the Named Driver Exclusion.

"Wrongful termination" was ambiguous as used in a director's and officer's liability insurance policy and "insured v. insured" exclusion did not preclude coverage where terminated directors of a corporation brought claims against board members for freezing them out of their positions.  Maritz Holdings, Inc., f/k/a Maritz Inc., Appellant v. Federal Insurance Company, Respondent.  No. 92318  (Mo. App. E.D., September 8, 2009), Richter, J.

Corporate directors who were terminated by Appellant Maritz Holdings, Inc. ("Maritz") filed suit against Maritz for claims of wrongful termination and allegations that Maritz had taken part in a "freezeout" campaign to disadvantage minority shareholders.  Maritz notified its insurer, Federal Insurance Company ("Federal"), under a director's and officer's liability policy issued by Federal to Maritz.  Federal denied coverage on the basis of an "insured v. insured" exclusion and stated that the "wrongful termination" exception to the exclusion did not apply.  Maritz filed suit for breach of contract, bad faith, and vexatious refusal to pay.  The trial court granted Maritz's motion for summary judgment on the declaratory judgment action.

Held:  The appellate court held that the term "wrongful termination" was ambiguous and not clear from the plain language of the policy.  Federal viewed the term to be synonymous with "wrongful discharge" and argued that there was no employer/employee relationship between the directors and Maritz.  No Missouri cases have addressed the question of whether a director's relationship to a company is an employer/employee relationship; however appellants alleged deprivation of benefits and pay upon their removal, which a fact-finder could find to be an employer/employee relationship, therefore making the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Federal erroneous.