From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...
Alea London Limited v. Bono-Soltysiak Enterprises
Missouri Court of Appeals
186 S.W.3d 403 (2006)
Alea London Limited (plaintiff) issued a surplus-lines insurance policy to Bono-Soltysiak d/b/a Laclede Street Bar and Grill (Laclede Street) (defendant) on December 20, 2001. That day, Alea London faxed a binder to Laclede Street’s insurance broker containing the coverage amount, the premium, and the liability limits. The binder listed “excludes assault & battery” as the only condition. Laclede Street’s policy issued on January 16, 2002, but it was never delivered to Laclede Street. The policy issued for a restaurant that did not serve alcohol or have a dance floor, and it had an endorsement containing exclusions for assault and battery incidents and liquor liability cases. However, before the policy issued, a patron was killed during an altercation in Laclede Street’s parking lot. The patron’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Weger (defendants), sued Laclede Street for wrongful death in a state trial court, and Alea London agreed to defend Laclede Street. Shortly after, Alea London moved for declaratory judgment that the incident was not covered. The trial court denied Alea London’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, Alea London presented evidence that the exclusions in the endorsement were typical. However, Laclede Street’s expert called the language draconian. In fact, Laclede Street subsequently purchased a surplus-line policy without the exclusions. Additionally, an insurance broker testified that because surplus-line policies do not follow general standards, they use several types of assault and battery exclusions, and the binder was ambiguous as to which exclusion would be included in the final policy. The trial court found in favor of Laclede Street and the Wegers, concluding that the binder was the operative insurance contract and could have only been governed by terms added by the issued policy if the terms were standard in the surplus-lines industry. Alea London appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cohen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 583,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 583,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.