375.296. Additional damages for vexatious refusal to pay. — In any action, suit or other proceeding instituted against any insurance company, association or other insurer upon any contract of insurance issued or delivered in this state to a resident of this state, or to a corporation incorporated in or authorized to do business in this state, if the insurer has failed or refused for a period of thirty days after due demand therefor prior to the institution of the action, suit or proceeding, to make payment under and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract of insurance, and it shall appear from the evidence that the refusal was vexatious and without reasonable cause, the court or jury may, in addition to the amount due under the provisions of the contract of insurance and interest thereon, allow the plaintiff damages for vexatious refusal to pay and attorney's fees as provided in section 375.420. Failure of an insurer to appear and defend any action, suit or other proceeding shall be deemed prima facie evidence that its failure to make payment was vexatious without reasonable cause.
Notes of Decisions
JAM Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 128 S.W.3d 879 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 12× “Perrett sought damages for vexatious refusal to pay under section 375.296. 8 Section 375.296 provides for the insurer to pay additional damages for vexatious refusal to pay under the policy: [I]f the insurer has failed or refused for a period of thirty days after due demand…”
Overcast v. Billings Mut. Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Section 375.296, titled, "Additional Damages For Vexatious Refusal To Pay,” provides: In any action, suit or other proceeding instituted against any insurance company, association or other insurer upon any contract of insurance issued or delivered in this state to a resident of…”
Stark Liquidation Co. v. Florists' Mut. Ins. Co., 243 S.W.3d 385 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Although Florists argues that it had reasonable cause to believe that there was no liability under the CGL policies and that it had meritorious defenses, both are merely factual situations in which an insurer may claim “reasonable cause” under Section 375.296— i.e., the CGL…”
Katz Drug Co. v. Com. Stand. Ins. Co., 647 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “In their third point on appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in not awarding a vexatious penalty under §§ 375.296 and 375.420 6 for defendant’s failure to pay for their losses in both the Cannon and Blair lawsuits.”
Hopkins v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., 896 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 5× “Section 375.296, RSMO 1986 1 This statute allows, in addition to allowing an insured the ability to enforce the contract of insurance, to also seek additional damages.”
Watters v. Travel Guard Int'l, 136 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “banc 1976); Section 375.296; Section 375.420. 7 The statute permitting penalties for an insurer’s refusal to pay without *109 reasonable cause or excuse, is penal in nature and must be strictly construed.”
Drury Co. v. Missouri United Sch. Ins. Couns., 455 S.W.3d 30 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Missouri United School Insurance Counsel (“MUSIC”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County in favor of Drury Company (“Drury”) on its claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay pursuant to sections 375.296 and 375.420. 1 Drury’s claims…”
Smith Ex Rel. Stephan v. AF & L Ins. Co., 147 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Section 375.296 authorizes damages for vexatious refusal where an insurer refuses to pay a claim after 30 days and it appears from the *778 evidence that the refusal was vexatious and without reasonable cause.”
DeWitt v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 667 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 2× “We finally consider defendant's several remaining points all regarding the jury award of attorneys' fees for vexatious refusal to pay pursuant to § 375.296 and § 375.420, RSMo 1978. Defendant's sixth point contends the trial court erred in submitting the claim to the jury.”
State Ex Rel. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Walsh, 540 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 6× “for the balance due for materials and labor furnished and for damages and attorneys' fees for vexatious delay under §§ 375.296, RSMo 1969 and 375.420, RSMo 1969 (Supp.”
Academy Bank, N.A. v. Amguard Ins. Co., 116 F.4th 768 (8th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “AmGuard argues that, unlike the insurer in Dhyne, it never refused to pay the claim. Yet AmGuard waited over a year and a half before paying Academy even the undisputed portion of the claim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.