White Knight Diner, LLC v. Owners Insurance Company, No. 21-2956 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Two individuals were involved in a car accident in St. Louis, Missouri. One of the cars crashed into White Knight Diner, resulting in property damage to the restaurant. At the time, White Knight was insured by Owners Insurance Company (Owners)pursuant to a policy that provided coverage for property damage and loss of business income (the Policy). After the insurers brought several motions to dismiss, the district court dismissed all parties except for Owners and White Knight. White Knight then filed an amended complaint against Owners only, adding new causes of action, including breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Owners filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted Owners’ motion. White Knight appealed, arguing that disputed material facts remain as to whether Owners’ subrogation efforts were conducted in breach of the Policy.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that even assuming Owners’ actions were taken pursuant to the Policy, White Knight’s claim still fails because it does not establish that it suffered any damages as a result of Owners’ failure to abide by the contracted-for procedures. White Knight, as an insured party under the Policy, contracted for and paid premiums to receive insurance. And Owners settled White Knight’s claim under the Policy when Owners paid White Knight a total of $66,366.27 for property damage and business income loss. White Knight has not shown that it suffered any damages beyond the compensation it received from Owners. Without evidence of damages, a breach of contract claim fails.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Grasz, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Insurance. The insurer's action in obtaining reimbursement from the tortfeasor's insurers before plaintiff, its insured, had recovered anything from them was not unlawful conduct under Missouri's subrogation statute and Missouri case law; plaintiff's insurer did not breach the policy when it sought reimbursement from the tortfeasors in a manner contrary to the subrogation statute rights granted in the policy because plaintiff could not show that he suffered any damages as a result of the insurer's failure to abide by the contracted-for procedures; nor did the insurer's action violate its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.