FARM BUREAU LIES

Missouri Farm Bureau has denied far too many claims, and sued hundreds of it's members in the last 5 yrs. If you insure with them you may be their next victim.
Home
For Sale
Recent Updates
Farm Bureau Tactics
The Book
Other FB Law Suits
Allsbury v FB
Barton v FB
Blakeman v FB
Butler v FB
Charley v FB
Davidson v FB
Dillon v FB
Driver v FB
Emmerson v FB
FB v Baltzell
FB v Boose
FB v Brown
FB v Christopher
FB v Countryman
FB v Dalton
FB v Elliot
FB v Evans
FB v Faulkner
FB v friedley
FB v Gash
FB v Gash
FB v Mitchell
FB v Murphy
FB v Sheets
FB v Stade
FB v Swain
FB v Westlake
Fisk v FB
Frisbie v FB
Gash v FB
Hobick v FB
Jensen v FB
JSB v FB
Koski v FB
Lee v FB
Luster v FB
McGlone v FB
Merseal v FB
Meyers v FB
Moeckli v FB
Newberry v FB
Ohare v FB
Pool v FB
Rardon v FB
Sanders v FB
Summers v FB
Terry v FB
Tompkins v FB
Weaver V FB
White v FB
Wimberly v FB
Woods v FB
Young v FB
Fight Back
Manna of Utah
The McKinsey Slides
Exam. Under Oath
Other Horror Stories
Farm Bureaumobiles
The Billboards
Bumper Stickers
About Me
The Gash Claim
The Gash Suit
The Gash Arrest
The Name
F.B. vs Free Speech
Farm Bureaus suit
Farm Bureau Lawyers
Policyholder Lawyers
My Position
Zoning Issues
My plea to FB
Site Map
The Release's
My Goal
links
Mo Dept of Insurance
Newspaper Articles
Name Index
Farm Bureau Contacts
Pictures
Claim Handlers
Contact Me
Disclaimer
Canoe Race 2009
Canoe Race 2008
Genealogy
Greensburg Kansas
new
Joplin Tornado Pictures
(Farm Bureaus Petition) 
FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI
MAR 20 2004
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMP ANY OF MISSOURI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JO DEAN MURPHY,
Defendant.
Serve: Jo Dean Murphy
2150 Southwest County Line Road Lee's Summit, Missouri 64082
Case No. 04CV208515
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW plaintiff, Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri
("Farm Bureau"), pursuant to Rule 87 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and §527.100
RSMo., and for its Petition for Declaratory Judgment, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff is an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Missouri.
2. Defendant is, and was at all relevant times, a citizen and resident of Jackson,
County, Missouri.
3. On or about June 6, 2003, defendant executed a Protector Application, thereby
seeking to procure insurance from plaintiff on a dwelling located at 10905 E. 66th Street,
Raytown, Missouri, and the personal property contained therein.
4. In the Protector Application and during the application process, defendant
represented and warranted to plaintiff that said dwelling was neither vacant nor unoccupied.
5. In the Protector Application and during the application process, defendant
represented and warranted to plaintiff that said dwelling contained numerous amenities, including a countertop range, a dishwasher, a garbage disposal, and a whirlpool tub.
6. In the Protector Application and during the application process, defendant
represented and warranted to plaintiff that the roof of said dwelling was only two years old.
7. In the Protector Application and during the application process, defendant
represented and warranted to plaintiff that there was no major remodeling or construction ongoing at said dwelling.
8. Based on information provided by defendant in the Protector Application and
during the application process, plaintiff issued a policy of insurance to defendant having policy number PR00255216 and a policy period of June 9, 2003 through June 9, 2004.
9. On June 25,2003, the aforesaid dwelling and personal property were damaged by fire.
10. On or about September 2, 2003, defendant submitted a Sworn Statement in Proof
of Loss to plaintiff, thereby making a claim under the aforesaid policy in the amount of Two Hundred Thirteen Thousand, Three Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars and Forty-Nine Cents ($213,336.49).
11. During its investigation of defendant's claim, plaintiff learned that the aforesaid
dwelling was vacant and unoccupied at the time of the application and at the time of the fire.
12. During its investigation of defendant's claim, plaintiff learned for the first time
that the aforesaid dwelling did not contain any of the amenities referenced in paragraph 5 above at the time of the application or at the time ofthe fire.
13. During its investigation of defendant's claim, plaintiff learned for the first time
that the roof on the aforesaid dwelling was significantly more than two years old.
14. During the investigation of plaintiff's claim, defendant learned that there was
extensive and major remodeling and construction which was ongoing at the aforesaid dwelling.
15. The policy of insurance contains the following condition:
Concealment, Fraud, or Misrepresentation
We do not provide coverage for any insured who has concealed any fact, made fraudulent statements, misrepresentations, or engaged in fraud in connection with any application for insurance, accident or loss for which coverage is sought under this policy.
16. Due to defendant's concealment and misrepresentation of material facts in the
application for insurance, and breach of the policy condition referenced in paragraph 15 above,
plaintiff has rescinded the policy of insurance and returned the premium paid by defendant.
17. There exists an actual case or controversy of justiciable nature between plaintiff
and defendant concerning the rights and obligations of each party under the policy of insurance.
18. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent under the policy, and is
reserving and preserving any and all rights and defenses under the policy of insurance and the
law.
19. Plaintiff has sustained damage as a result of defendant's concealment and
misrepresentation of material facts in the application for insurance and breach of the policy
conditions in that plaintiff has sustained the expenses of a prolonged claim investigation,
including attorney's fees, which are continuing to accrue.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor, declaring:
A. That defendant concealed and misrepresented material facts in the application for
msurance;
B. That the insurance policy is void ab initio as a result of defendant's concealment
and misrepresentation of material facts in the application for insurance and breach of the policy
conditions;
C. That plaintiff is not in any manner liable under the policy for the claim made by defendant;
D. That plaintiff is entitled to recover all of its costs and expenses, including attorney's fees;
E. That plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
Russell F. Watters, #25758  Robert L. Brady, #47522 Brown & James, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant
1010 Market Street, 20th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101  314-421-3400 314-421-3128 FAX 

(Farm Bureaus Dismissal) 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, 
vs.
JO DEAN MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Case No. 04CV208515
Now on this day, pursuant to Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice filed by the Parties on January 4" 2006;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned cause of action is dismissed WITH
prejudice with each party to bear its own costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1ST day of January, 2006. 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing were duly mailed/faxed this 1st day of January, 2006, to:
Russell Watters, Attorney for Plaintiff (fax 1-314-421-3128)
H. Kent Desselle, Attorney for Defendant (fax 836-8047)