The Takeaway
When insurers in Missouri send non-renewal notices,[i] it’s crucial that they:
- adhere to the codified requirements of Missouri Statute Section 379.118
- ensure their systems don’t auto-generate conflicting information after the non-renewal notice is sent
Case Background
Plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 30, 2020. Their insurer, Farm Bureau Town and Country, denied coverage and denied that Plaintiffs’ policy was in effect at the time of the accident.
Farm Bureau sent a letter regarding non-renewal of the policy in November 2019 and stopped debiting Plaintiffs for payment in October 2019. However, around the time of the accident, Farm Bureau sent Plaintiffs declaration sheets and identification cards reflecting coverage on the date of the accident.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Farm Bureau demanding coverage and indemnification for the subject accident. Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment on the basis that it had non-renewed Plaintiffs’ policy; therefore, there was no coverage.
The trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the insurer effectively non-renewed Plaintiffs’ policy prior to the accident. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment.
Appellate Court’s Analysis
On appeal, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Farm Bureau sent the non-renewal notice in a timely manner pursuant to its own policy by mailing the notice via regular mail. However, the appellate court found that Farm Bureau failed to adhere to the requirements codified by the Missouri legislature in Missouri Statute Section 379.118, which provides in pertinent part:
Notice shall be sent by United States Postal Service certificate of mailing, first class mail using Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb), or another mail tracking method used, approved, or accepted by the United States Postal Service… § 379.118, R.S.Mo.
According to Farm Bureau’s representative, they completed an internal certificate of mailing form and sent the non-renewal via first class mail. Farm Bureau’s representative also testified that they did not know if they sent the notice via certified mail despite the motion for summary judgment stating it had been sent via certified mail.
Plaintiffs argued that the notice simply raised a presumption that they would not be renewed because they later received declaration sheets and identification cards showing the policy was in effect. The court relied on Clear v. Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education’s finding that:
When proof of proper mailing is adduced, the presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing that the mailing was not received. Evidence of non-receipt does not nullify the presumption but leaves the question for the determination of the finder of fact under all the facts and circumstances of the case. 23 S.W.3d 896, 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).
The Court of Appeals surmised that both the improper mailing of the notice of non-renewal combined with the additional facts that Plaintiffs received declaration sheets and identification cards showing the policy was still in effect led to a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
[i] Scott v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Mo., No. ED113072, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 259, at *1 (App. E.D. Apr. 22, 2025)
AssociateThe cornerstone of Christine D. Bushnell’s practice is defending clients in mass torts and civil litigation. She has successfully defended clients in a broad array of matters including medical malpractice, personal injury ...
PartnerInspiration and service. This is what drives Kathleen Schlef Hamilton’s work with her clients. As an attorney focused on general trial and appellate litigation, Ms. Hamilton’s successes have always been guided by her ability ...
