FARM BUREAU TOWN and COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI
Serve: Dale Finke, Director of Insurance
301 W. High Street, Ste 530
Jefferson City, Mo 65101
and
CHAD WRIGHT,
Serve at: 944 Sutton Place Liberty, Missouri 64068
Defendants.
Case Number:05AECV00606 FEB 2 5 2005
PETITION FOR DAMAGES
COME NOW Plaintiffs, David and Julie Charley, husband and wife, and for their cause of action against defendants allege and state:
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiffs are husband and wife residing at 15910 North Winan Road, Platte City, Missouri 64079;
2. Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri ("Farm• Bureau") is an insurance company authorized to do
business in Missouri and doing business in Platte County Missouri and issued Policy Number: PRO 0046172 02 insuring plaintiffs' dwelling.
3. Chad Wright was an Insurance Agent, and at all times pertinent herein, was doing business in Platte County, Missouri as an agent of Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri and was the agent through whom plaintiffs' obtained the insurance coverage with Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri;
4. On or about June 29, 2001 plaintiffs' dwelling referenced above was destroyed as a result of a fire;
6. Plaintiffs' made a claim against said insurance company by submitting a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss setting forth their claim for damages to the dwelling, the contents therein, and the increased living expense and complied with all of the applicable terms and conditions of the policy.
COUNT I
7. Farm Bureau's Employee Debra Griffin was assigned to adjust the claim on behalf of the insurance company;
8. Ms. Griffin mislead the Plaintiffs with regard to debris removal expense coverage;
9. The insurance company retained Brackmann Construction Company and paid them $24,000.00, which was deducted from the building limit when Ms. Griffin had led the Charleys to believe that this was an additional amount of coverage;
10. Brackmann Construction Company did not complete all of the debris removal and the Charleys had to incur additional debris removal costs to the contractor they hired to repair their home;
11. If plaintiffs' had not been mislead on the debris removal coverage limit, they would have sought competitive bids and would not have authorized Brackmann to proceed as indicated in the payment and work authorization signed by the insured's on July 315t after the insurance company had already issued payment.
12. The actions of Farm Bureau are vexatious under §375.420, RSMo., entitling plaintiffs to an award of penalty and attorney fees as provided for in said statute.
WHEREFORE, in Count I of their Petition, Plaintiffs pray damages in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), for pre-judgment interest, for penalty and attorney fees for the vexatious conduct of the defendant Farm Bureau, and for any other damages the court should deem appropriate.
COUNT II
12. In September of 1997, plaintiffs' met with Mr. Chad Wright, an agent of defendant insurance company;
13. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Mr. Wright's investigation into the replacement cost coverage for the home and that the proper amount of coverage was $220,000.00;
14. Because of the inadequate limits, plaintiffs' did not receive sufficient guaranteed replacement costs to fully repair their home as stated in the policy and as promised by the Farm Bureau through its agent;
15. The actions of Farm Bureau are vexatious under §375.420, RSMo., entitling plaintiffs to an award of penalty and attorney fees as provided for in said statute.
WHEREFORE, in Count II of their Petition, Plaintiffs pray damages in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), for prejudgment interest, for penalty and attorney fees for the vexatious conduct of the defendant Farm Bureau, and for any other damages the court should deem appropriate.
COUNT III
16. That Chad Wright is an agent of Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri;
17. Plaintiffs met with Mr. Wright for the purposes of obtaining Insurance;
18. Plaintiffs sought the advice of Mr. Wright with respect to the adequate coverage amount necessary;
19. The plaintiffs specifically asked Mr. Wright how much coverage and types of coverage(s) they needed;
20. Plaintiffs were entitled to and did rely on Mr. Wright's superior knowledge and experience to assure that the amount of coverage and the types of coverage were correct;
21. Mr. Wright failed to obtain the necessary amounts and types of coverage and as a result of Mr. Wright's failure plaintiffs have been damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' pray judgment against the defendant Wright in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($ 25,000.00) and such further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
MONACO, SANDERS, GOTFREDSON, RACINE & BARBER L.C.
By. Williarfl JGotfredson Mo Bar #22875 1001 E. 101st. Suite 170 Kansas City, Missouri 64131 Telephone: 816/523-2400
Facsimile: 816/942-0006
gotfredson@kcattorneys.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
(Farm Bureaus Answer)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PLATTE COUNTY MO. STATE OF MISSOURI
DAVID and JULIE CHARLEY
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FARM BUREAU TOWN and COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI
and
CHAD WRIGHT
Defendants.
SEPARATE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FARM BUREAU
COMES NOW defendant Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri ("Farm Bureau"), through undersigned counsel, and for its Answer to plaintiffs' Petition, states as follows:
1. Admit.
2. Defendant Farm Bureau admits having issued Policy Number PRO 0046172 02; Defendant denies the remainder of Paragraph 2, in that the policy speaks for itself, and plaintiffs' characterization of said Policy is either inaccurate or incomplete.
3. Admit.
4. Denied.
6. (sic) Denied.
COUNT I
7. Admit.
8. Denied.
9. Denied.
10. Defendant Farm Bureau lacks sufficient information with which to admit or deny; therefore, Defendant denies same.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT FARM BUREAU
1. Plaintiffs' petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Defendant Farm Bureau has made full and final payment for all losses sustained, and that plaintiffs accepted such payments, that said acceptance constitutes an accord and satisfaction, and that plaintiffs have otherwise waived their right to claim additional sums from this Defendant.
3. The entire Farm Bureau insurance policy issued to the plaintiffs, Policy Number PRO 0046172 02, including all of its terms, was delivered to and accepted by plaintiffs.
COUNT III (sic)
16-21. Defendant Farm Bureau makes no answer to the allegations contained in Count III of the plaintiffs' petition, because said allegations are not directed toward this defendant. To the extent such allegations are directed toward this defendant, said allegations are denied.
Robert L. Brady # 47522 BROWN & JAMES Attorneys for Defendant
1010 Market Street, 20th Floor St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-421-3400 314-421-3128 - FAX