These type of facts are seen more in worker’s comp claims than personal injury to students claims. Nevertheless it demonstrates that in Missouri, all people at all times deserve to be protected from the negligence of others, notwithstanding the environment they find themselves.

If you or a loved one have suffered an injury, please contact Bottaro, Morefield, Kubin and Yocum and let us obtain the appropriate redress for your injuries.

What is unusual about this case is that the family of the man who drove drunk and killed himself sued the man’s employer for negligent entrustment. In essence, the family is claiming that because the deceased was known to drive drunk, his death is the fault of the employer who allowed him to use a company vehicle, not his own fault for deciding to drink and drive.  To complicate matters further, the man who died while driving drunk was a part owner of the company that provided the vehicle to him.

It is important to keep in mind that neither a court nor a jury has found the company liable for providing the car to the drunk driver.  The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the company.  The Court of Appeals reversed, which simply means the case can proceed to trial and that the family has a viable legal claim. This case highlights the complexity of the rules regarding negligent entrustment and how important it is for vehicle owners to be cautious about the persons to whom they entrust their vehicles.  It will be interesting to see what a jury does with this case if it gets to trial.

The lawyers of Bottaro, Morefield, Kubin & Yocum, P.C. handle negligent entrustment lawsuits in Kansas and Missouri.

When Plaintiff failed to maintain insurance on his mortgaged farm, his bank obtained “force-placed” or “lender-placed” insurance on the property from Associated through Proctor.

Plaintiff made a claim against the force-placed insurance policy after his property was damaged by a storm. But because the policy covered only the farmhouse and specifically excluded other property, the insurance payment to the bank did not cover all of the storm damage.

Plaintiff sued Associated and Proctor, alleging that they were liable to him for the insurance shortfall. But the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Proctor. The district court held that plaintiff had not stated a contract cause of action because he was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the insurance policy. Further, the district court held that plaintiff had not stated a cause of action for promissory estoppel or fraud on grounds that the insurance policy and various loan documents foreclosed any justifiable reliance by plaintiff.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against Proctor.

Ms. Yocum practices extensively in the area of insurance issues and disputes and is licensed in Kansas and Missouri.  Ms. Yocum has extensive experience as a trial and appellate attorney.

According to the National Trial Lawyers website, “The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers is a professional association composed of only the most qualified trial lawyers from each state. Membership into The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers is by invitation and is extended only to those attorneys who exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, leadership, influence, reputation, stature, and profile in the trial attorney community, as viewed by the National Trial Lawyers organization, other trial lawyers, members of the bench, and the public at large.  The Association conducts the necessary investigation and diligent evaluation of trial lawyers’ qualifications for invitation as one of its exclusive members.”