(Allsbury's Petition) 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI
NELSON ALLSBURY, TERRI L. PRESLEY-ALLSBURY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI,
Serve Registered Agent: Dan Cassidy 701 S. Country Club Dr., Box 658 Jefferson City, MO 65102
and
JEFF CARR,
d/b/a Clay City Farm Bureau 944 Sutton Place Liberty, MO 64068
Defendants,
PETITION
COME NOW Plaintiffs, Nelson Allsbury and Terri Allsbury, by and through their attorney of record{ Robert A. Kumin
of Robert A. Kumin{ P.C., and state and allege as follows:
COUNT I - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
1. Plaintiffs are residents of Platte County, Missouri.
2. Defendant, Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri ("Farm Bureau"), is a Missouri insurance corporation
authorized to transact business in the state of Missouri.
3. Defendant, Jeff Carr ("Carr"), was at all times relevant hereto an authori zed agent of Defendant { Farm Bureau, and was
regularly engaged in the sale of insurance coverage on behalf of said Defendant. At all times relevant hereto, Carr maintained an
insurance agency on behalf of Defendant or with Defendant's consent and authorization under the name Clay City Farm Bureau at 944
Sutton Place, Liberty, Missouri, 64068.
4. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper.
5. On or about the 15th day of December 2000, Plaintiffs and JJ Edwards Company ("JJ"), entered into a Residential Construction Loan Agreement ("Agreement") for the construction of the new home for Plaintiffs to be built at 8001 N. Cosby Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, 64151. A copy of said Agreement is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked Exhibit "A". Pursuant to the terms of said Agreement, JJ was required to maintain certain insurance coverage, which insurance was a condition precedent to JJ receiving any payments for the construction of the home.
6. Defendant, Carr, had knowledge of the requirement that JJ provide proof of insurance as a condition of the Agreement and for JJ to receive payments pursuant to said Agreement.
7. Carr was authorized by Defendant, Farm Bureau, to issue certificates of insurance and binders for insurance coverage issued or to be issued by Defendant, Farm Bureau. Carr was further granted actual and/or apparent authority by Farm Bureau to represent to third parties the existence of insurance coverage on behalf of Farm Bureau.
8. On or about December 15, 2000, Carr issued on behalf of Farm Bureau, a certificate of insurance representing that JJ obtained general liability coverage listing Plaintiffs' mortgage lender, First Horizon Home Loan Corp. ISAOA, "First Horizon", as mortgage holder and additional loss payee, (Policy #047-1-0810136) . A copy of said certificate of insurance is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked Exhibit "B". 
9. On or about December IS, 2000, Carr, on behalf of Farm Bureau, also issued a certificate of insurance pursuant to which the Plaintiff, Nelson D. Allsbury, was listed as insured and First Horizon, was listed as mortgage holder and additional loss payee, (Policy #OF80000065). A copy of said certificate of insurance is attached hereto, incorporated by reference, and marked Exhibit UCH.
10. Carr, on behalf of and with knowledge and/or authorization of Farm Bureau, caused Exhibits UB" and UCH to be faxed on or about December IS, 2000, to Security Land Title which was the title company closing the home loan of Plaintiffs with First Horizon, and to First Horizon.
11. At the time Carr faxed Exhibits UBH and UCH to Security Land Title, Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and First Horizon would reasonably rely upon the representations of that insurance coverage existed as set forth on Exhibits UBH and "C". Defendants further knew, or reasonably should have known, that the issuance of insurance as referenced by Exhibits UBH and UCH were conditions precedent to Plaintiffs obtaining a home loan for the construction of the house referenced in such insurance.
12. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the representations of the existence of insurance, and in reliance thereof, closed on their loan with First Horizon through Security Land Title.
13. Plaintiffs incurred substantial liability with First Horizon by closing on the mortgage and authorizing First Horizon to begin making payments to JJ for construction of their home. But for the representation of the existence of the contractually
required insurance and the advance payment of the premiums thereon, Plaintiffs would not have closed their mortgage loan and would not have authorized payments to JJ pursuant thereto.
14. At the time Exhibits "B" and "C" were transmitted by Carr, acting as agent of Farm Bureau and/or within the scope of his employment with Farm Bureau, Carr and Farm Bureau knew or reasonably should have known, that no such insurance actually existed. The representation that insurance existed when it did not was a fraudulent misrepresentation of material facts which Defendants knew would be relied upon by Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs' detriment and damage.
15. Plaintiffs could not have known and did not know that the insurance represented by Exhibits "B" and "C" were not issued in December 2000. Farm Bureau's legal counsel first advised Plaintiffs in March 2006 that the insurance policies referenced by Exhibi ts "B" and "C" did not exist in December 2 0 0 0 and the insurance under Exhibit B had never existed.
16. In October 2001, Plaintiffs' lender, First Horizon, contacted Carr regarding whether or not insurance coverage remained in effect. At that time, one of Carr's employees falsely represented that both policies were in good standing and that insurance coverage remained in existence as to both policies. These representations, which were knowingly false, were made by Carr on behalf of Farm Bureau and while acting within the scope of Carr's employment/agency relationship with Farm Bureau.
17. When in October 2001, such representations were falsely made, Defendants knew that the policy referenced in Exhibit "B" had never been in existence at any time since the initial representation of such existence in December 2000.
18. Defendants knew, or wi th reasonable diligence should have known, that the policy referenced in Exhibit "C" had allegedly been cancelled for non-payment of premium. Defendants further knew that Plaintiffs and First Horizon would be relying upon the repres~ntations of the existence of the policies in October 2001.
19. In additional furtherance of the fraudulent
misrepresentations by Defendants, in December 2001, Plaintiffs contacted Carr regarding the need to renew the policies at that time. Defendants continued to falsely represent that the policies remained in good standing.
20. When the December 2001, representations were made, Defendants knew or with reasonable diligence should have known that the policy peT Exhibit "B" had never existed at any time. As to the policy per Exhibit "C", Defendants knew or with reasonable diligence should have known that it allegedly had been cancelled for non-payment of premium.
21. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs would rely upon the representations made in December 2001, and Plaintiffs did so reasonably rely to their detriment.
22. As a result of Plaintiffs' reasonable reliance on the false representations, Plaintiffs sustained substantial losses by allowing JJ to be paid by First Horizon while in material default of Exhibit "A" by non-payment of insurance premiums and lack of insurance coverage.
23. Based upon the Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary or punitive damages in an amount that is fair and reasonable.
WHEREFORE 1 for this Count I of their Petition, Plaintiffs pray Order of this Court granting them judgment 1 jointly and severallYI against Defendants 1 Jeff Carr and Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri 1 in the sum of not less than $200,000.001 for their attorney/s fees hereinl for punitive damages in an amount that is fair and reasonable 1 and such other costs and relief as this Court deems proper.
COUNT II - FRAUDULENT OMISSION
For this Count II of their Petition Plaintiffs
24. incorporate the above and preceding paragraphs by reference.
25. Farm Bureau issued to Plaintiffs 1 through Carr 1 purported insurance under policy #OF80000065 dated December 151 2000. Farm Bureau has represented to Plaintiffs that such binder and certificate of insurance 1 as referenced hereinbefore, resulted in policy #PRO 02243481 with Plaintiffl Nelson D. AllsburYI listed as insured. AdditionallYI said policy lists First Horizon as Mr. Allsbury/s mortgage lender. This policy Farm Bureau claims was cancelled effective its alleged issue date. Farm Bureau further claims a "replacement" policy was issued effective April 111 2001 (policy #PR00227570) . 
26. Farm Bureau represented in 2006 to Plaintiffs that the aforementioned policy was cancelled for non-payment of premium in October 2001. If such cancellation occurred, Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty under law and contractually to advise Plaintiffs of the non-payment of premium prior to cancellation of the policy. In direct violation of these duties owed to Plaintiffs, Farm Bureau never sent any notice to Plaintiffs that the premium on the policy had not been paid. Further, Defendant never sent Plaintiffs notice of the alleged cancellation of that policy.
27. In addition to the duty owed by Defendant to Plaintiffs regarding policy #PR00227570, Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs' mortgage holder, First Horizon, to give it valid and effective notice of the non-payment of premium and the subsequent cancellation of the insurance. Defendants failed to give such notices to First Horizon.
28. In addition to the foregoing, Defendant never advised Plaintiffs or First Horizon that policy #PR00227570 did not exist in December 2000.
29. Defendants knew or had reason to know that the premlums on policy #PR00227570 were not paid, that said policy did not exist in December 2000, and that said policy was cancelled.
30. Defendants further knew or had reason to know that policy #PRO 047-1-0810136 allegedly never existed.
31. Defendants' failure to send Plaintiffs and First Horizon #PR00227570, non-payment of and Defendants'
premium and cancellation of policy failure to notify Plaintiffs that notices of policy #PRO 047-1-0810136 allegedly never existed, constitute material omissions for which Defendants had a duty of disclosure to Plaintiffs and First Horizon. Plaintiffs relied upon those material omissions and the lack of required disclosures into falsely believing that insurance coverage existed and that JJ was current in its financial obligations and had paid the premiums as required under the Agreement between JJ and Plaintiffs.
32. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and First Horizon would rely on said nondisclosures on the presumption that the insurance coverage was in existence.
33. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the omissions of Defendants to their detriment.
34. Plaintiffs incurred substantial liability with First intentional Horizon by closing on the loan and authorizing First Horizon to begin making payments to JJ for construction of their home. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, JJ did not pay premiums or maintain insurance. Had Defendants provided notice that the contractually required insurance was cancelled or allegedly never in existence, and that the premiums had not been paid thereon, Plaintiffs would not have closed their loan and would not have authorized paYments to JJ pursuant thereto.
35. Had Plaintiffs been made aware of the failure by JJ to pay premiums or maintain current insurance, Plaintiffs would have declared the Agreement in default and ceased funding through its lender, First Horizon. Additionally, had First Horizon received valid notice of the breach of the obligation to maintain lnsurance by JJ, it would have ceased funding draws by JJ.
36. The failure of the Defendants to notify Plaintiffs that premiums had not been paid, and that insurance coverage did not exist or had been cancelled were intentional and knowing or with such total disregard of the truth as to be actionable.
37. Defendants had a contractual duty and a duty at law to notify Plaintiffs and First Horizon regarding the nonpayment of premiums and the cancellation of said insurance policies.
38. Defendants had superior knowledge than Plaintiffs regarding the nonpaYment of premiums and the cancellation of the insurance policies.
39. Defendants had a further duty to disclose the nonpayment of premiums and the cancellation of the insurance policies to Plaintiffs in order to clarify misleading information regarding the existence of said policies that Defendants had already disclosed to Plaintiffs.
40. Based upon the Defendants' fraudulent omissions, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary or punitive damages in an amount that is fair and reasonable.
WHEREFORE, for this Count II of their Petition, Plaintiffs pray Order of this Court granting them judgment, jointly and severally, against Defendants, Jeff Carr and Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri, in the sum of not less than $200,000.00, for their attorney's fees herein, for punitive damages in an amount that is fair and reasonable, and such other costs and relief as this Court deems proper. 
Count III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION For this Count III of their Petition,
Plaintiffs
41. incorporate the above and preceding paragraphs by reference.
42. Carr and Farm Bureau supplied information to Plaintiffs and to Plaintiffs' agents regarding the existence of insurance coverage evidenced by Exhibits "B" and "C" in the normal course of Defendants' business.
43. As a consequence of the Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care in verifying that premiums were paid and insurance coverage did, in fact, exist, the information regarding the payment of premiums and the existence of insurance coverage supplied to Plaintiffs and to First Horizon was false.
44. The information regarding the existence of insurance coverage was intentionally provided by Defendants in order to guide Plaintiffs, First Horizon and Security Land Title to close the construction loan, and to extend construction draws to JJ from time to time.
45. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the Defendants' representations that premiums were paid and insurance coverage existed, in that neither Plaintiffs nor their agents had reason to suspect that insurance coverage did not exist.
46. Due to the reliance of Plaintiffs upon the Defendants' representations that premiums were paid and insurance coverage existed, Plaintiffs sustained substantial losses by allowing JJ to be paid by First Horizon while in material default of Exhibit "A" for non-payment of insurance premiums and lack of insurance coverage.
WHEREFORE, for this Count III of their Petition, Plaintiffs pray Order of this Court granting them judgment, jointly and severally, against Defendants, Jeff Carr and Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri, in the sum of not less than $200,000.00, and such other costs and relief as this Court deems proper.
COUNT IV - NEGLIGENT OMISSION
For this Count IV of their Petition, Plaintiffs
47. incorporate the above and preceding paragraphs by reference.
48. Defendants failed to notify Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' agents that premiums were not paid and that insurance coverage was cancelled or allegedly never existed.
49. Defendants knew or had reason to know that said premiums were not paid and the insurance policies were cancelled or allegedly never existed.
50. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' agents would rely on said nondisclosures on the presumption that the insurance coverage was in existence.
51. Defendants had a contractual and a statutory duty to notify Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' agents regarding the nonpayment of premiums and the cancellation of said insurance policies.
52 . Defendants had superior knowledge regarding the nonpayment of premiums and the cancellation of the insurance policies.
53. Defendants had a further duty to disclose the nonpayment of premiums and the cancellation of the insurance policies to 
Plaintiffs in order to clarify misleading information regarding the existence of said policies already disclosed to Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, for this Count IV of their Petition, Plaintiffs pray Order of this Court granting them judgment, jointly and
severally, against Defendants, Jeff Carr and Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri, in the sum of not less than
$200,000.00, and such other costs and relief as this Court deems proper.
ROBERT A. KUMIN, P.C.  #25226   5800 Foxridge Dr., Suite 306 Mission, KS 66202
(913) 432-1826 (913) 236-7115 - FAX NO. E-Mail: rkumin@kuminlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
I:\Documents\allsbury.carr.pet.wpd

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI 
NELSON ALLSBURY, and TERRI L. PRESLEY-ALLSBURY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

 FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, and JEFF CARR, 
Defendants.       Case No. 06CY-CVI0228
Dec. 2 8, 2006 
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS FARM BUREAU TOWN &COUNTRY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI AND JEFF CARR
COME NOW defendants Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri ("Farm Bureau") and Jeff Carr, by and through their undersigned counsel of record and pursuant to The Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby state as follows for their Answer to plaintiffs'
Petition for Damages:
COUNT I - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
1. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
2. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs' Petition.
3. Defendants admit that Jeff Carr is a Farm Bureau agent with an office located at 944 Sutton Place, Liberty, Missouri 64068. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 3
of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
4. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs' Petition.
5. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
6. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
7. Defendants admit that Jeff Carr was authorized by Farm Bureau to issue certificates of insurance and binders of insurance under certain limited terms and conditions. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiffs' Petition.
8. Defendants admit that on or about December 15,2000, Jeff Carr signed a certificate of insurance and a copy is attached to plaintiffs' Petition as Exhibit B. Defendants deny all the remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiffs' Petition. Defendants affirmatively state that Farm Bureau did not issue a policy of insurance identified as Policy No. 047-1-0810136.
9. Defendants admit that on or about December 15,2000, Jeff Carr signed a certificate of insurance and a copy is attached to plaintiffs' Petition as Exhibit C. Defendants deny all the remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs' Petition. 
10. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
11. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in Paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' Petition.
12. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions oflaw contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
13. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
14. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiffs' Petition. Defendants affirmatively state that the policy of insurance issued in conjunction with Exhibit C would not have provided insurance coverage for plaintiffs' claims against J.J. Edwards under the circumstances.
15. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs' Petition. Defendants affirmatively state that, although no policy of insurance was issued in conjunction with Exhibit B, Policy No. PRO 0224348 was issued in conjunction with Exhibit C. Policy No; PRO 0224348 was later canceled, per the insureds' request, back to the original commencement date of the policy. Policy No. PRO 0227570 was issued thereafter effective April 11, 2001.
16. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny that in October 2001, plaintiffs' lender, First Horizon, contacted Jeff Carr regarding whether or not insurance coverage remained in effect, and therefore, deny same. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs' Petition.
17. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph l7 of plaintiffs' Petition.
18. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiffs' Petition.
19. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiffs' Petition.
20. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions oflaw contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiffs' Petition.
21. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' Petition.
22. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiffs' Petition.
23. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiffs' Petition.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count I of plaintiffs' Petition for Damages, defendants pray to be discharged with their costs herein incurred and expended, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT 11- FRAUDULENT OMISSION
24. Defendants incorporate by reference herein their answers to paragraphs 1 through 23 of plaintiffs' Petition as though fully set forth herein. 
25. Defendants admit that Farm Bureau issued a policy of insurance (Policy No. PRO 0224348) in conjunction with the issuance of the certificate of insurance identified by the number OF80000065, dated December 15,2000. Defendants further admit that Policy No. PRO 0224348 was issued pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions and other provisions of said policy. Defendants further admit that per the insured's request, Policy No. PRO 0224348 was canceled back to the original commencement date of the policy, and that Policy No. PRO 0227570 was issued thereafter, effective April 11, 2001. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiffs' Petition.
26. Defendants admit that Policy No. PRO 0227570 was issued subject to the terms, conditions, exclusions and other provisions of said policy. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
27. Defendants admit that Policy No. PRO 0227570 was issued subject to the terms, conditions, exclusions and other provisions of said policy. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiffs' Petition. Defendants affirmatively state that Farm Bureau did issue mortgagee termination notices to First Horizon Home Loan.
28. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 28 of plaintiffs' Petition.
29. Defendant Farm Bureau was aware that premiums on Policy No. PRO 0227570
were not paid, and that said policy canceled. Defendants deny that Policy No. PRO 0227570 did not exist. Defendants admit that Policy No. PRO 0224348 was issued in conjunction with Exhibit C. Defendants further admit that per the insureds' request, Policy No. PRO 0224348 was later canceled back to the original commencement date ofthe policy, and that Policy No. PRO 0227570 was issued thereafter, effective April 11, 2001. Defendants affirmatively state that First Horizon Horne Loan was notified of the cancellation of the policy. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny all remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
30. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 30 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
31. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs' Petition.
32. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 32 of plaintiffs' Petition.
33. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 33 of plaintiffs' Petition.
34. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
35. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
36. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 36 of plaintiffs' Petition. 
37. The insurance policies speak for themselves concerning the rights and obligations of the parties thereto regarding notification of non-payment of premium and cancellation. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 37 of plaintiffs' Petition.
38. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
39. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 39 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
40. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiffs' Petition.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count II of plaintiffs' Petition for Damages, defendants pray to be discharged with their costs herein incurred and expended, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
41. Defendants incorporate by reference herein their answers to paragraphs 1 through 40 of plaintiffs' Petition as though fully set forth herein.
42. Defendants admit that on or about December 15,2000, Jeff Carr signed certificates of insurance and copies are attached to plaintiffs' Petition as Exhibits Band C. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
43. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 43 of plaintiffs' Petition.
44. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions oflaw contained in paragraph 44 of plaintiffs' Petition.
45. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 45 of plaintiffs' Petition.
46. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 46 of plaintiffs' Petition.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count III of plaintiffs' Petition for Damages, defendants pray to be discharged with their costs herein incurred and expended, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV - NEGLIGENT OMISSION
47. Defendants incorporate by reference herein their answers to paragraphs 1 through 46 of plaintiffs' Petition as though fully set forth herein.
48. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 48 of plaintiffs' Petition.
49. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
50. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 50 of plaintiffs' Petition.
51. The insurance policies speak for themselves concerning the rights and obligations of the parties thereto regarding notification of non-payment of premium and cancellation.
Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 51 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
52. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 52 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
53. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in paragraph 53 of plaintiffs' Petition, and therefore, deny same.
54. Defendants deny all allegations of fact and conclusions of law contained in Plaintiffs' Petition, except those specifically admitted or limited herein.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count IV of plaintiffs' Petition for Damages, defendants pray to be discharged with their costs herein incurred and expended, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
55. Plaintiffs' Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
56. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute oflimitations. Defendants further affirmatively state that plaintiffs' claims are barred by Section 516.100, RSMo., and Section 516.120, RSMo.
59. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the affirmative defense of laches.
58. Defendants affirmatively state that plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages violate Article I, Section 10 and the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections 2, 8,10,13, 14, 18(a), 19 and 21 of the Missouri Constitution. Defendants further state in particular that:
(a) Such damages are penal in nature;
(b) The jury or fact finder has total discretionary powers to award damages for aggravating circumstances, and adequate objective legal standards do not exist to guide and limit the jury's or fact finder's discretion, thus allowing an award of damages for aggravating circumstances to be irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and based on value, unpredictable, conflicting, and purely subjective standards;
(c) Vague and inconsistent legal standards for the imposition of punitive damages deprive defendants of sufficient notice of the type of conduct and mental state upon which such an award may be based in the amount of the damages award which could result from defendants' alleged misconduct;
(d) The guidelines, standards, procedures and instructions for the imposition of such damages are ambiguous, indefinite, vague, uncertain, conflicting, purely subjective and fundamentally unfair;
(e) No objective standards are established concerning the award of such damages;
(f) The imposition of such damages impairs defendants' right to access to the courts to adjudicate civil disputes.
59. There is no coverage for plaintiffs' claims against J.J. Edwards under any of the policies referenced in plaintiffs' Petition under any circumstances. Plaintiffs' Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 
60. The certificates of insurance referenced in plaintiffs' Petition confer no rights upon the certificate holder, and the certificates do not amend, extend or alter any coverage afforded by the subject insurance policies.
61. Defendants affirmatively state that they reserve the right to assert any additional affirmative defenses which may become apparent during the course of this litigation.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered plaintiffs' Petition for Damages, defendants pray to be discharged with their costs herein incurred and expended, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
CARSON & COIL, P.C.
Dana L. Frese
515 East High Street P.O. Box 28
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: (573) 636-2177
Facsimile: (573) 636-7119
and 
SCHMlTTMANZ SWANSON & MULHERN, P.C.
Matthew F. Mulhern MO #36764
1000 Walnut, Suite 800 Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 472-5310
Facsimile: (816) 472-5320
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY
NELSON ALLSBURG, et aI., Plaintiffs,
vs.
ARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE CO., et aI.,
Defendants. 
Case No. 06CY-CV10228 ) Division 2
ORDER OF REFERRAL TO MEDIATION
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in the above cause of action and finds that said cause appears to be one that is appropriate for referral to mediation pursuant to Rule 17 of the Missouri Court Rules, and that the Court enters the following orders:
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall participate in a mediation program in accordance with Rule 17.03.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the attorneys representing the parties shall select a mediator and agree to the method of paying said mediator, and in the event that they cannot do so by agreement, they shall notify the Court and the Court will select the mediator.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the attorneys who will try the case and the parties, or a representative of a party with settlement authority, shall attend the mediation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall provide to the chosen mediator in advance of the mediation a summary of the facts and issues in dispute, or any other material requested by the mediator.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the attorneys for the parties shall confer with each other and select a mediator within 45 days of this order and notify the Court of the name of said mediator.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mediation program shall be completed within 90 days of this order unless the parties stipulate to an enlargement of this period and the Court consents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the paliies shall report to the Court the results of the mediation within 10 days of the conclusion of the program pursuant to Rule 17.05(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a party concludes that mediation will not work and said party chooses to opt out pursuant to Rule 17.03(b), the said party shall notify opposing counsel and the Court in writing within 30 days of this order that the party and the
attorney for the party have conferred and found that mediation would not be productive.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is subject to modification upon written stipulation of the parties.
Dated: 6/15/2007
Robert A. Kumin
5800 Foxridge Drive, Suite 306 Mission, KS 66202
Matthew F. Mulhern SCHMITT MANZ, et aI. 1000 Walnut, Suite 800 Kansas City, MO 64106
Dana L. Frese CARSON & COIL
515 East High, P.O. Box 28 Jefferson City, MO 65102
Anthony Rex Gabbert Circuit Judge, Division 2 



(court actions filed in this case)
7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County)
06CY-CV10228 - NELSON ALLSBURY ET AL V FARM BUREAU TOWN & CO IN
This information is provided as a service and is not considered an official court record.
Displaying 1 thru 16 of 16 dockets returned for case 06CY-CV10228.

11/13/2006 Docket Entry: Pet Filed in Circuit Ct

Docket Entry: Motion Special Process Server

11/27/2006 Docket Entry: Order - Special Process Server

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Circuit
Text: Document ID: 06-SMCC-1645, for FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY; Document ID: 06-SMCC-1646, for CARR, JEFF; SUMMONSES ISSUED TO DEFENDANTS AND MAILED TO ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE.

12/28/2006 Docket Entry: Answer Filed
Filing Party: FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY,

01/09/2007 Docket Entry: Summons Personally Served
Text: Document ID - 06-SMCC-1646; Served To - CARR, JEFF; Server - ; Served Date - 29-NOV-06; Served Time - 00:00:00; Service Type - Sheriff Department; Reason Description - Served

Docket Entry: Return Service - Other
Text: Document ID - 06-SMCC-1645; Served To - FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY; Server - ; Served Date - 29-NOV-06; Served Time - 00:00:00; Service Type - Special Process Server; Reason Description - Served; Service Text - Summons left with Doris Moore

02/21/2007 Docket Entry: Filing:
Text: Notice of Service of Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant, Jeff Carr.
Filing Party: ALLSBURY, NELSON

Docket Entry: Filing:
Text: Notice of Service of Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant, Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri.
Filing Party: ALLSBURY, NELSON

03/19/2007 Docket Entry: Filing:
Text: Objections to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Jeff Carr.
Filing Party: CARR, JEFF

Docket Entry: Filing:
Text: Objections to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Farm Bureau Town and County Insurance Company of Missouri.
Filing Party: FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY,

06/15/2007 Docket Entry: Ord and Notice of Mediation

07/05/2007 Docket Entry: Motion to Compel
Text: Motion for order compelling answers to plaintiffs request for production of documents filed. lla
Filing Party: LORENZETTI, JAMES THOMAS

08/01/2007 Docket Entry: Notice
Text: Notice of Hearing.
Filing Party: ALLSBURY, NELSON

08/02/2007 Docket Entry: Hearing Scheduled
Associated Events: 09/19/2007 , 09:00:00 - Hearing

09/17/2007 Docket Entry: Suggestions in Opposition
Text: To Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents.
Filing Party: FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY,


Displaying 1 thru 16 of 16 dockets returned for case 06CY-CV10228.