In the Eastern District of Missouri, a five-day jury trial last year delivered a clear and principled verdict in favor of our client, a national insurance company. The jury found that the policy provided coverage for certain storm-related damage to the Plaintiff’s St. Louis-based furniture manufacturing facility following severe weather events. However, they awarded no additional damages for building repairs, limiting recovery to just over $100,000 for personal property and related business-interruption costs.
The plaintiff, having already been paid for the initial storm damage to the roof, sought more than $1.5 million for what it claimed was additional storm-caused damage and resulting water leakage. A thorough investigation revealed clear signs of long-term leakage, wear and tear, and deterioration on the roof. The jury agreed, awarding nothing further for the roof itself or the interior water damage to the building. The jury further rejected the vexatious claim, finding that our client’s coverage position and handling of the claim were reasonable.
Unhappy with the outcome, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial and argued that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence and that certain testimony from a roofing contractor should have been excluded. Senior District Judge Catherine Perry recently issued a thorough memorandum and order denying the motion. She held that the jury’s findings were amply supported by credible testimony in the record, particularly on the scope and cost of roof repairs. Missouri law (and federal standards) does not require a new trial simply because reasonable minds might differ on the evidence. Regarding the roofing contractor’s testimony, the Court found it properly admissible and caused no undue prejudice.
Before and during the litigation, the plaintiffs actively sought to shape public perception of the dispute. They appeared on social media, internet blogs and on national outlets, including NBC Nightly News as part of its “Cost of Denial” series, presenting the story of a family-run business facing challenges from an insurer’s coverage determination. While media attention can highlight important issues, it did not change the facts presented at trial: the policy language, detailed damage assessments, adjuster documentation, and expert evaluations all supported the insurance company’s reasonable position. In the end, the jury focused on the evidence, not headlines or emotions, and reached a verdict grounded firmly in the record.
At Watters Wolf Bub & Hansmann, we were proud to represent our client, the insurance company, throughout this matter, from assisting with initial claim handling through removal, discovery, trial, and post-trial proceedings. Our team’s careful preparation and presentation of the facts helped ensure the case was decided on its merits, reinforcing that insurance disputes are resolved through evidence, policy interpretation, and fair procedure, not public narratives or frustration.
This outcome serves as a steady reminder in the world of insurance defense: when positions are well-supported and reasonably held, courts and juries will uphold them. We’re grateful for the opportunity to secure a just resolution for our client.