underinsured motorist

Arvest Bank v. Uppalapati

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held that the spouse of a debtor was liable under a personal guarantee that she signed. The spouse argued that she was protected by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which prohibits a creditor from discriminating against any applicant for credit on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, age, or because the applicant is on public assistance.

Regulation B, which was promulgated under the ECOA, limits when a creditor can require the signature of persons other than the applicant on the credit documents. The regulations provide:

Except as provided in this paragraph, a creditor shall not require the signature of an applicant’s spouse or other person, other than a joint applicant, on any credit instrument if the applicant qualifies under the creditor’s standards of creditworthiness for the amount and terms of the credit requested. A creditor shall not deem the submission of a joint financial statement or other evidence of jointly held assets as an application for joint credit. [12 C.F.R. § 202.7(d)(1)]

[click to continue…]

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Post on Twitter

{ 0 comments }

Graham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

In a case involving two uninsured motorist policies, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District held that a State Farm policy provided coverage only to the extent that its policy limits exceeded the primary underinsured motorist coverage.

Two provisions in the policy were at issue. One read,

The most we pay will be the lesser of: a. the difference between the amount of the insured’s damages for bodily injury, and the amount paid to the insured by or for any person or organization who is or may be held legally liable for the bodily injury; or b. the limits of liability of this coverage.

[click to continue…]

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Post on Twitter

{ 3 comments }

Holmes v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners

Former police officer Danny Holmes sued the Kansas City police department under the Missouri Human Rights Act and on breach of contract and whistleblower claims for the termination of his employment by the police department. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District reversed the trial court’s judgment for Mr. Holmes on the breach of contract claim. The appellate court held that, while R.S.Mo. § 84.600 gives police officers a property right in continued employment, it does not give them a contractual right to sue for damages for wrongful termination. The court stated, “The general rule is that there is no private right of action to enforce a statute or regulation through an action for damages … and [w]here administrative review of a denied property right is adequate, parties may not” sue for damages instead. Further, R.S.Mo. § 84.600 doesn’t create a contractual term binding the board of police commissioners and a police officer.

[click to continue…]

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Post on Twitter

{ 2 comments }