Litigation - Representive Matters

In 2008, successfully represented a major insurance carrier in the defense of an insurance policy.

Following a three day jury trial before Judge Catherine Perry in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Armstrong Teasdale attorney Todd Nissenholtz obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a major insurance carrier. Two Branch Marina, a policy holder, brought suit for property damage resulting from a winter storm in December, 2006. Two Branch Marina is located on the Mississippi River in St. Charles, Missouri. On November 29 through December 1, 2006, a winter storm struck the greater St. Louis area, including St. Charles County. The winter storm produced significant amounts of snow and ice across much of the middle of the country, including St. Charles. It was estimated that approximately 2 inches of ice, along with 2 to 3 inches of snow fell on Two Branch Marina, and that winds at Two Branch during the storm were over twenty-nine (29) mph, with gusts of forty-four (44) mph. In the early morning of December 1, 2006, several boat docks at Two Branch Marina collapsed.

At the time of the collapse, Two Branch Marina was insured by policy covering damage resulting from a “Windstorm,” but not for damage resulting from ice or snow. At trial, Two Branch Marina argued that the docks collapsed at the result of a windstorm, and that it was the addition of the forceful and violent winds accompanying the snow and ice that caused Two Branch’s docks to be destroyed. Plaintiff sought in excess of One Million dollars for vexatious refusal, and more than $300,000 in property damage. Prior to trial the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for vexatious refusal on summary judgment. Accordingly, the only issue remaining for trial was the cause of the collapse. Defendant took the position that the docks collapsed under the weight of ice and snow, and therefore were not covered under the insurance policy.

After hearing evidence from multiple witnesses to the storm and its aftermath, evidence related to the weather data from the storm, testimony from several engineering experts and the property owner, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant.