(Farm Bureaus suit against the Stades) 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIESS CO. STATE OF MISSOURI
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMP ANY OF MISSOURI,    SEP 2 2 2004
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRYAN L. And MARILYN DEANN STADE
Defendants.
Serve:
Bryan L. Stade
And
Marilyn Deann Stade 23987 230th Street Gallatin, MO 64640 6325
Case No. CV-304-79CC
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. Defendants are, and were at all relevant times, citizens and residents of Daviess County, Missouri.
3. On or about April 19, 2003, defendants executed a Protector Application, thereby seeking to procure insurance from plaintiff on a dwelling located at 23987 230th Street, Gallatin, Missouri., and the personal property contained therein . 
4. Based on information provided by defendants in the Protector Application and during the application process, plaintiff issued a policy of insurance to defendants having policy number PR00252784 and a policy period of April 19, 2003 through April 19, 2004.
5. In the aforementioned Protector Application, defendants represented to plaintiff that they had no prior losses.
6. On January 6, 2004, the aforesaid dwelling and personal property were damaged by fire.
7. On or about January 26, 2003, defendants submitted a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to plaintiff, thereby making a claim under the aforesaid policy in the amount of One Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($192,500.00).
8. During plaintiffs investigation of defendants' claim, plaintiffleamed for the first time that defendants had had two prior losses on the dwelling in question.
9. Defendants' policy of insurance contains the following condition:
GENERAL POLICY CONDITIONS APPLYING TO SECTION I AND SECTION II
5. 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.
10. Defendants' policy of insurance also contains the following exclusion:
SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS
1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
h. Intentional Loss, meaning any loss arising out of any act committed:
(1) By or at the direction of an "insured"; and (2) With the intent to cause a loss.
11. There is no coverage for defendants' claimed loss and defendants are barred from recovery under the policy because defendants intentionally concealed and/or misrepresented material facts in the application for insurance, specifically the existence of previous losses, and, as such, defendants breached the aforementioned policy condition referenced in paragraph 9 above, and the insurance policy is void ab initio.
12. There is no coverage for defendants' claimed loss and defendants are barred from recovery under the policy because defendants intentionally concealed and/or misrepresented the extent of the damage to the property and otherwise presented an inflated, overstated and fraudulent claim for property damage, and, as such, defendants breached the aforementioned policy condition referenced in paragraph 9 above.
13. There is also no coverage for defendants' claimed loss and defendants are barred from recovery under the policy because the fire was intentionally set by or at the direction of defendants, and, as such, defendants breached the aforementioned policy exclusion referenced in paragraph 10 above.
14. There exists an actual case or controversy of justiciable nature between plaintiff and defendants concerning the rights and obligations of each party under the policy of insurance.
15. Due to defendants' 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 defendants.

(The Stades answer and counter suit)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIESS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI
FARM BUREAU TOWN & COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY OF :MISSOURI
Plaintiff,
v.
BRYAN L and MARILYN DEANN STADE
Defendants! Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LASHER
Serve: 305 K McElwain Drive
Cameron, MO 64429
Third- Party Defendant.
Case No. CV304-79CC
FILED NOV  1, 2004
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM
COIvIES NOW Defendants Bryan L. and Marilyn Deann Stade, by and through their undersigned counsel, and in response to Plaintiffs Petition for Declaratory Judgment, state as follows:
1. The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 are admitted.
2. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are admitted.
3. Defendants admit that Marilyn Deann Stade signed an application for insurance which was prepared in toto by Plaintiff's insurance agentlbroker, and were seeking to procure insuran.ce on their home located at 23987 230th St., Gallatin, Missouri, and the personal property therein. The remainder of said Paragraph 3, and any provision not specifically admitted herein. is denied.
4. Defendants lack any specific information to allow them to respond to Paragraph
4, and therefore deny the same.
5. Defendants admit that the application prepared by the insurance agentlbroker did not list the two prior losses. Further answering, Defendants deny each and every other allegation and averment contained in paragraph 5.
6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are admitted.
7. The allegations and averments contained in Paragraph 7 are denied. In further answering, Defendants state that on January 26,2003, they submitted a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to Plaintiff, without reference to any amount claimed. It was not until February 14,2003, at the specific direction of the in.surance agentlbroker, that the policy limits of $192,500.00 were placed into the proof of Loss form.
8. Defendants lack any specific information to allow them to respond to Paragraph
8, and, therefore, deny the same.
9. In answering Paragraph 9, Defendants state that the allegation is purportedly an excerpt from a document and, as suc~ requires no answer. In further answering, the Defendants' policy of insurance speaks for itself
10. In answering Paragraph 10, Defendants state that the allegation is purportedly an excerpt from a document and, as such, requires no answer. In further answering, the Defendants' policy of insurance speaks for itself.
11. Denied

12. Denied

15. The allegations and avertments in Paragraph 11 are denied.
16. The allegations and averments in Paragraph 12 are denied. 
13. The allegations and averments in Paragraph 13 are denied.
14. The allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are admitted.
15. Defendants lack any specific information to allow them to respond to Paragraph 15, and, therefore, deny the same.
16. Defendants lack any specific information to allow them to respond to Paragraph 16, and, therefore, deny the same.
17. Defendants lack any specific information to allow them to respond to Paragraph 17, and, therefore, deny the same.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
As separate and distinct Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's alleged causes of action set forth in its Petition, and without admitting any of the allegations contained in the Petition, but specifically denying the same, Defendants state and allege as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
(Failure To State A Cause of Action)
1. As a separate and First Affirmative Defense, Defendants allege that the Petition and every alleged cause of action therein against Defendants fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants and fail to state facts upon which a claim can be based against Defendants, and therefore should be dismissed.

SECOND DEFENSE (Estoppel)
2. As a separate and Second Affirmative Defense, Defendants allege the Plaintiff has engaged in conduct and activities ,vith respect to the matters alleged in the Petition by reason of which it is estopped from asserting any cause of action for damages, or seeking any relief, against Defendants because Plaintiff had knowledge of Defendants' prior losses, yet still issued Defendants a policy of insurance. Therefore, Defendants contend that Plaintiff waived or is estopped from asserting any claim or cause of action for any damages attributable to Defendants failure to perform obligations under contract or quasi contract.
THIRD DEFENSE (Waiver)
3. As a separate and Third Affir:roative Defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has waived any recovery and right to any recovery against Defendants for damages alleged in the Petition. if any. In particular, Defendants incorporate herein by reference the allegations and
averrn.ents asserted in its Second Affirmative Defense as set forth herein in full. Therefore, the Petition, and every alleged cause of action therein against Defendants is barred by ilie Doctrine of Waiver.
FOURTH DEFENSE (Right to Add Additional Defenses)
4. As a separate and Fourth Aff1fII1ative Defense, Defendants state that because the Petition herein is couched in conclusionary terms, Defendants cannot fully anticipate all Affirmative Defenses which may be applicable to the 'Within action. Accordingly the right to
assert additional Affirmative Defenses. if and to the extent that such Affirmative Defenses are applicable, is hereby expressly reserved by Defendants. In addition, Defendants further reserve the right to add such other AfIumative and/or Additional Defenses as may be discovered during the course of this litigation.
\VHEREFORE, having fully responded to Plaintiff' s Petitio~'). for Declaratory Judgment. Defendants' pray this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff declaring the following: 
a. That the insurance policy is binding and in effect;
b. That the frre was not intentionally set by or at the direction of the insureds;
c. That there is coverage under the policy for Defendants' loss;
d. That Plaintiff is liable under the policy for the claim made by Defendants;
e. The costs of this action are taxed against Plaintiff and any other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEFENDANTS COUNTER-CLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST SEPERATE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER LASHER
Facts Common to All Counts
COMES NOW Defendants Bryan L. and Marilyn Deann Stade, by and through the undersigned counsel, and for their causes of action, state and allege as follows:
L Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs are Bryan 1. and Marilyn Deann Stade, (hereinafter the '"Stades") owners of certain real estate located at 23987 230th St., Gallatin, Daviess County, Missouri.
2. The Plaintiffi'Counter-claim Defendant is Farm Bureau Town & Country Insurance Company of Missouri (hereinafter "Fann Bureau"), an insurance company liceIlBed to business in the State of Missouri.
3. The TIlird-Party Defendant is Christopher Lasher (hereinafter "Lasher") an insurance broker or agent for Defendant Farm Bureau, with offices located at 305 McElwain Dr., Cameron, DeKalb County, Missouri. 4. The Stades contacted Lasher in an attempt to procure insurance for their home in March, 2003. 
5. Lasher interviewed Deann Stade on MaIch 11, 2003, to obtain information to place into the required application for Farm Bureau and entered the information into a computer.
6. In that interview, Lasher inquired as to the reason for changing insurance companies, wherein Deann Stade indicated that their prior insurance company was not renewing their policy. Defendants had experienced two loss claims, one from a lightning strike in 2002, and one from wind damage to the roofin 2001-
7. Upon completion of the interview, Lasher printed out what he identified as the application, and Deann Stade signed each page where indicated by Lasher.

8. The Stades paid each and every premium from Farm Bureau when presented.
9. On January 6, 2004, a basement fired damaged the Stade's home and their personal belongings.
10. The Stades immediately notified Lasher and Farm Bureau of the [lIe and inquired as to how to make a claim for damages.
11. With the assistance of Lasher and other Farm Bureau representatives, the Stades prepared and submitted the paperwork provided to them by Lasher and Farm. Bureau.
12. Due to the Stade's inexperience in the claims process, some oftJ:J.e forms were incomplete and rejected by Farm Bureau.
13. In order to complete the rejected forms, the Stades inquired of Lasher for specific assistance on how to complete portions of the forms, and thereafter followed his instructions to fully complete each form.
COUNT I - COUNTER-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT FARM BUREAU
14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 above are incorporated herein as iffully set out in their entirety.
15. On June 18, 2004, the Stades sent a certified letter, with the return receipt requested to Faun Bureau, making formal demand for payment from Farm Bureau on said claim in the amount of $64,900.00 for the Dwelling coverage, $64,761.71 for the Personal contents
coverage, and their actual expenses incurred under the Actual Expense coverage. 16. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since said demand was made to Farm Bureau.
17. To date, Farm Bureau has failed and refused to pay said claim.
18. Farm Bureau's delay in its investigation, as well as its' refusal to pay said claim was and is vexatious and without reasonable cause.
19. The Stade's claim was based upon the coverage provided by Farm Bureau's policy, was reasonable, and was covered under the applicable policies.
20. The value of the Stade's property destroyed by the casualty, and, thus liable for reimbursement is $129,761.71, plus the actual expenses incurred in being out of their home.
21. Farm Bureau is liable under the contract for insurance in said amount.
22. Pursuant to R.S.Mo §§375.296 and 375.420, the Stades are entitled to interest on said amount at the maximum allowed rate, plus damages of twenty (20) percent ofthe first $1,500.00 of said claim, and damages often (10) percent of the amount over $1,500.00, plus
their costs and reasonable attonley's fees.
WHEREFORE, the Stades pray this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Farm Bureau as follows:
a. $129,761.71 for the losses to the dwelling and their personal property;
b. An amount to compensate them for their reasonable out-of-pocket living expense pursuant to the Extra Expense coverage;
c. Interest thereon at the maximum lawful rate;
d. Damages of twenty (20) percent of the first $1,500.00 of their loss;
e. Damages ofTen (10) percent of the amount of their loss in excess of$1,500.00;
f. Their reasonable attorney fees incurred herein;
g. Their costs herein expended and any other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT 11- CROSS-CLAIM
AGAINST THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER LASHER
23. To the extent they are consistent herein, Paragraphs 1 through 22 above are incorporated herein in. Count II as iffully set out in its entirety.
23. The Third-Party Defendant herein is Christopher Lasher.
24. The Stades contacted Lasher about obtaining coverage for their real and personal property, and discussed the type of property, both real and personal, which was to be covered.
25. The Stades also discussed their need to change insurance companies because of their prior insurance company not renewing their previous policy for insurance coverage. Lasher, identified their two previous claims, as well as the deadline for obtaining replacement
msurance coverage.
26. Based upon these discussions, Lasher prepared all of the paperwork necessary to submit applications for coverage to Fann Bureau and requested Deann Stade sign the applications prepared by Lasher, to which she signed.
27- Based upon the application paperwork prepared by Lasher, and the applications he submitted On behalf of the Stades, Lasher procured the above referenced policies with Farm Bureau.
28. The Stades paid each and every premium installment on said policy, as requested.
29. The Stades relied upon Lasher's professional opinions and recommendations as to coverage of all of their property in the types and amounts necessary, as well as the paperwork he prepared for their application.

30. After the fire casualty occurred, the Stades notified Lasher and Fann Bureau of their claim.
31. The Stades were led to believe, based upon their specific request to procure insurance with Lasher, that the insurance application he prepared was completed in a ;manner to allow coverage for the• amounts and types requested.
32. "The Stades were notified by Farm Bureau, in its Petition for Declaratory Judgment herein, that the application for insurance prepared by Lasher allegedly had certain material defects which eliminated coverage in the types and amounts procured by Lasher.
33. Lasher had a fiduciary obligation, as agent, to protect and procure policies of insurance for the Stades covering their property in the amounts and types as requested to cover the property destroyed in the fue.
34. By failing to procure the proper insurance by preparing an application with certain material defects, Lasher breached this obligation to the Stades.
35. As a direct and proximate cause of Lasher's breach of this obligation, the Stades suffered damages.
36. The Stade's have suffered damages in the amount of$129,761.71, plus their out- of-pocket expenses under the extra expense coverage of the procured insurance, for the value of the real and personal property damaged and destroyed in the fire by purportedly not covered by the policy procured by Lasher.
WHEREFORE, the Stades pray this Court enter Judgment for them, and against Lasher in the amount of$129,761.71; their out-of~pocket expenses under the extra expense coverage; interest thereon at the maximum lawful rate; their attorney's fees expended herein and any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
LILES, DAVISON, TIEMAN & GOINS, LLC
Jack Hendrix, MO # 41661
1018 W. St. Maartens Drive, Suite 200 St. Joseph, Missouri 64506
Telephone: (816) 364-4044
Facsimile: (816) 364-6396
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS