Joseph P. Krispin

Principal

636-798-0587   |   jkrispin@wwbhlaw.com

Joe Krispin focuses his trial and appellate practice in the area of insurance coverage law, including providing coverage opinions and representing insurance companies in coverage litigation at the trial court and appellate court levels.
photo of attorney Joseph P. Krispin

Overview

Joe Krispin represents insurance companies in matters involving complex insurance coverage issues and has represented carriers in coverage matters in over 200 cases to date at the pre-suit, trial and appellate levels.  His coverage advice and representation have involved a variety of insurance coverages, including commercial general liability coverage, personal auto liability coverage, commercial auto liability coverage, garage liability coverage, uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, homeowners liability coverage, umbrella liability coverage, and first party property coverage. Joe has represented carriers in coverage matters involving millions of dollars in claims in both litigated and non-litigated matters. Joe has a detailed understanding of complex insurance concepts relevant to high exposure coverage disputes, particularly as it concerns Missouri law and issues specific to that jurisdiction.  Joe assists and guides his insurance carrier clients through the maze of insurance law in Missouri.  He takes pride in his persuasive legal writing skills which have led to numerous successful trial and appellate victories for the firm’s insurance carrier clients. Joe graduated from the University of Missouri School of Law with cum laude honors and was a member of the Missouri Law Review. Prior to law school, Joe graduated from Truman State University, where he was the captain of the Division 1AA Men’s Rugby Team. Joe lives in the St. Louis area with his wonderful wife and four wonderful young children. Joe has also served as a volunteer coach for a local high school mock trial team.

Past Results

  • In 2022, Joe Krispin was able to obtain a summary judgment on behalf of AMCO Ins. Co.  holding that the client’s policy’s definition of “underinsured motor vehicle” was unambiguous and precluded UIM coverage where the tortfeasor’s liability coverage limits were equal to the client’s policy’s UIM coverage limit. AMCO Ins. Co. v. Masiakiewicz, 2022 WL 1640298 (E.D. Mo. 2022).
  • In 2021, Joe Krispin was able to convince a Missouri court that the law of Illinois applied to an uninsured motorist claim resulting from a Missouri accident. The policy was issued to an Illinois insured on a car garaged in Illinois and the car was being driven by a Missouri permissive user who was injured and filed the UM claim. The court entered summary judgment holding that Illinois law applied to auto policy, such that a set-off provision in the “other insurance” section of the client’s UM policy was enforceable and operated to bar coverage for the insured’s claim where the insured recovered UM coverage from another insurer in an amount exceeding the client’s policy’s UM limit. Kelly v. Depositors Ins. Co., Case No. 20SL-CC02138 (Cir. Ct. of Saint Louis County, Mo).
  • In 2020, Joe Krispin convinced a court in a summary judgment motion that there was no uninsured motorist coverage available to an insured driver of the covered car.  Mr. Krispin convinced the court that the client’s policy did not provide UM coverage to the named insured’s adult daughter who owned a non-listed auto and was a resident of the named insureds household.  Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. v. Swyers, 471 F.Supp.3d 915 (E.D. Mo. 2020).
  • Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. v. Six, -- S.W.3d --, 2022 WL 2203238 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) Verdict and Judgment affirmed on appeal for Nationwide holding there was no underinsured motorist coverage as a result of the other insurance clause.
  • AMCO Ins. Co. v. Masiakiewicz, 2022 WL 1640298 (E.D. Mo. 2022) Judgement for AMCO holding by definition there was no underinsured motorist coverage available to the insured.
  • Kelly v. Depositors Ins. Co., Case No. 20SL-CC02138 (Cir. Ct. of Saint Louis County, Mo.) Applying Illinois law to a Missouri accident and driver, court held there was no uninsured motorist coverage available to the injured permissive driver.
  • Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Jake’s Fireworks, Inc., 501 F.Supp.3d 1158 (D. Kan. 2020) Applying the employers liability exclusion, court held there was no coverage available to the insured for a claim by an injured leased employee severely burned by fireworks explosion.
  • Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. v. Swyers, 471 F.Supp.3d 915 (E.D. Mo. 2020) Member of a household who owned a non-insured vehicle was not covered by auto policy of the named insured.
  • AMCO Ins. Co. v. Columbia Maintenance Co., 2020 WL 1170232 (E.D. Mo. 2020) Court finds in favor of client denying motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action based on abstention.
  • Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Jake’s Fireworks, Inc., 2020 WL 1984257 (D. Kan. 2020) Court enters order in favor of client denying motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action based on abstention.
  • Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic Spec. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4819949 (W.D. Mo. 2020) Court enters order in favor of client denying motion to dismiss equitable contribution action based on standing.
  • Geico Cas. Co. v. Walker, 788 Fed.Appx. 420 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (affirming 2019 WL 5685683 (W.D. Mo. 2019)) Court affirms summary judgment in favor of client holding UM coverage did not apply to injury sustained in drive-by shooting.
  • Secura Ins. Co. v. Northington, 2019 WL 2476588 (E.D. Mo. 2019) Summary judgment in favor of client holding UIM coverage did not apply where the tortfeasor’s liability coverage limits were not less than the UIM coverage limit.
  • Forsman v. Burgess, 552 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) Appellate court affirms summary judgment in favor of client holding Kansas law applicable to auto policy such that Contingent Rentee Exclusion was enforceable to bar liability coverage for auto injury claim.
  • Medavera Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 WL 5686713 (W.D. Mo. 2019) Court grants summary judgment in favor of client holding that employee embezzlement losses were not coverage under commercial property insurance policy.
  • Mo. Employers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durham Enterprises, Inc., 16SL-CC04206 (Cir. Ct. St. Louis County, Mo.) (2018) Trial court judgment following bench trial ruling that client did not owe additional workers compensation premiums. (second chaired Russ Watters in trial).
  • Walsh v. Geico Cas. Co., 1716-CV00557 (Cir. Ct. Jackson County, Mo.) (2018 summary judgment in favor of client holding that UIM coverages did not stack) (with partner Russ Watters)
  • Ellis v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 18AK-CC00003 (Cir. Ct. Carter County, Mo.) (2018) Court granted summary judgment in favor of client holding liability coverages in auto policy did not stack.
  • Geico Cas. Co. v. Clampitt, 521 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) Appellate court reverses trial court’s summary judgment against GEICO and enters judgment in favor of client holding that UIM coverages did not stack.

Awards & Achievements

  • Dean’s List
  • Missouri Law Review
  • Academic Excellence Awards in Writing, Advocacy and Writing, and Landlord Tenant Law

Publications

  • Note: The Supreme Court of Missouri Splashes with Precedent in Waterslide Injury Case – Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP, 450 S.W.3d 291 (Mo. en banc 2014), 81 Mo. L. Rev. 271 (2016)

Practices

Education

  • University of Missouri School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2016)
  • Truman State University (B.A, Communication, B.S., Justice Systems, 2013)

Bar Admissions

  • Missouri
  • Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri