379.140. Total loss of real property — full amount of policy less any deductible to be paid — inapplicability, when — multiple policies, effect on recovery — commercial buildings, policy covering two or more, recovery amount. — 1. When real property incurs a total loss caused by a peril covered under an insurance policy and such total loss is a covered loss under the insurance policy, then the liability of the insurance company writing the policy shall be the amount of money for which the real property was insured, less any deductible, as specified in the policy.
2. This section shall not apply to:
(1) Any partial loss;
(2) Any personal property that is not scheduled;
(3) Any detached or appurtenant structure;
(4) Any builder's risk policy;
(5) Any policy of mortgage insurance;
(6) Two or more buildings insured under a blanket basis or limit of insurance;
(7) Any loss in which the insured or one acting on the insured's behalf engaged in any fraudulent or criminal activity that contributed to the loss;
(8) Any loss to property if the insured increased the risk of loss insured against within sixty days of the date of the loss without the consent of the insurer and the increase in the risk of loss was a cause of the loss;
(9) Any replacement cost coverage provided for in a policy or by endorsement, except that this section shall not be construed to prohibit an insured from recovering any replacement cost coverage pursuant to the terms and conditions of a policy or endorsement; or
(10) Any loss that is covered by two or more policies.
3. If two or more policies provide coverage for a total loss of real property caused by a peril, then the insureds may recover the face amount of the policy with the highest limit of coverage, and each policy shall contribute to the payment of the loss in proportion to the amount of insurance mentioned in each policy.
4. For a total loss to a commercial building that is insured on a blanket basis for a stated amount that covers two or more commercial buildings, the settlement of the claim shall be based on the initial value assigned to each affected commercial building before the loss, with any balance remaining being settled according to the terms and conditions of the policy.
Notes of Decisions
DeWitt v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 667 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 14× “The plaintiff argues that under the Missouri valued policy statute, § 379.140, RSMo 1978, the insurance company cannot contest the actual value of her interest.”
JAM Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 128 S.W.3d 879 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 17× “Before addressing Nautilus’ specific claim, it should be noted that, generally, once it is determined that the insured has an insurable interest in the covered property, section 379.140, RSMo 2000, 3 prohibits the insurance company from contesting the value of that interest.”
Crewse v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 706 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 22× “08 and modified pursuant to section 379.140, RSMo 1939. The instruction to the jury stated: If you find in favor of plaintiffs on plaintiffs [sic] claim for damages then you must award plaintiffs the sum of $22,400 with interest rate of nine percent (9%) per annum, from March…”
Duckworth v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 452 S.W.2d 280 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 15× “More specifically, defendant says that the valued policy statutes of Missouri are Sections 379.140 and 379.145, RSMo 1959, V.”
G.M. Battery & Boat Co. v. L.K.N. Corp., 747 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 12× “Inasmuch as insurable interest is manifest, LKN is entitled to recover the full face amount of the policy for the total loss.”
Wells v. Missouri Prop. Ins. Placement Facility, 653 S.W.2d 207 (Mo. 1983).
· cites it 14× “” See § 379.140. They also sought certification of a class of plaintiffs from whose claims for partial loss respondent had deducted depreciation.”
Eckerd v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “1997) 2 Next, the Eckerds claim that pursuant to Section 379.140 RSMo 2000, Insurance Company was estopped from contending the insured property was worth less than the insured value in the policy.”
Stahlberg v. Travelers Indem. Co., 568 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 6× “The trial court construed “total loss” to mean “actual total physical loss wherein any remaining portion is not subject to use as a basis for reconstruction” and concluded appellant did not suffer a total loss, making Missouri’s valued policy statute, § 379.140 RSMo 1969,…”
Bridges v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 146 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “150 and § 379.140, RSMo 2000. (LF p. 20). 2. On or about April 10, 2001, the Plaintiff sustained a fire loss to her property in Kansas City, Missouri.”
Labrier v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 147 F. Supp. 3d 839 (W.D. Mo. 2015).
· cites it 9× “‘But in Wells the damage to the insured property was caused by fire and therefore involved an interpretation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 379.140 and - § 379.150, two statutes that deal with damage caused by fire.”
Gorman v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri, 977 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 7× “Summary judgment was granted to the respondents on the basis that, although at the time of their loss they no longer had an ownership interest in the insured property, they had an insurable interest and were entitled to policy limits pursuant to the “valued policy statute,” §…”
Berry v. Fed. Kemper Ins. Co., 621 S.W.2d 948 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Section 379.140, RSMo 1969, a “valued policy” statute, arbitrarily fixes the value of property insured for fire loss as the amount for which the property was insured less depreciation.”
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.