United States Eighth Circuit

In an insurance liability dispute, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the court did not err in finding that an insurance agent did not have any special or expanded agreement with defendant which would have transformed the general duty into an expanded duty; 2) the court properly found that Kansas's Valued Property Law does not apply and that plaintiff's liability was not limited to the valuation sheet value; 3) the coinsurance provision of the policy did not since the Valued Policy Law did not apply; 4) the policy provisions that limit coverage for the cost of repair or replacement in order to comply with an ordinance were in violation of Kansas public policy and not enforceable; 5) Missouri's vexatious refusal to pay statute did not apply as Kansas law governs the dispute; and 6) Kansas law concerning award of attorneys' fees applies if the insured obtains a judgment in excess of the amount the insurer tendered.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/14/2009
• Published 07/14/2009

Judges

• BENTON, Circuit Judge., Before MELLOY, BENTON, and DOTY. Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michael Thompson, argued, Lori Jane Sellers, Kansas City, MO, on the brief, for appellant., Robert W. Cockerham, argued, St. Louis, MO, for State Auto Property & Cas. Ins. Co., Stanley Michael Thomas, argued, Kansas City, MO, for T.S.A., Inc.