St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Company, a Company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation

Eighth Circuit

St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Company, a Company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation

113 F.3d 900, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11899, 1997 WL 259207

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1997

Docket96-2655EM

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 F.3d 900 (St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Company, a Company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indemnity Company, a Company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, 113 F.3d 900, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11899, 1997 WL 259207 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is whether a certain loss is covered by a policy of credit insurance issued by the defendant, American Credit Indemnity Company, to the plaintiff, St. Louis Trimming, Inc. The loss occurred before the premium applicable to the risk in question was paid. The District Court¹ construed a provision of the policy to bar coverage under these circumstances. The District Court has filed a thorough published opinion. St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indem. Co., 924. F.Supp. 99 (E.D.Mo.1996). We have nothing of significance to add. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court.

The dissenting opinion argues that American Credit’s conduct in accepting late payments of premiums amounts to a waiver of the policy provision in question, or estops American Credit to rely on the provision. For the reasons given at some length in the opinion of the District Court, we agree that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are not available here, because their use would allow the creation of coverage where, under the clear language of the policy, none exists. We point out, in addition, that the conduct of the insurer that is relied upon does not, in any event, amount to a waiver or estoppel. There is no past instance of the insurer’s paying a loss with respect to which the premium had not been paid at the time the loss occurred. Late payments of premiums were accepted, but in no case did the insurance company pay a loss that had occurred before the relevant premium payment.

[901]*901The insurance company is instructed to return to St. Louis Trimming, Inc., the premiums attributable to the loss that occurred in this case. On this understanding, the judgment is.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is whether a certain loss is covered by a policy of credit insurance issued by the defendant, American Credit Indemnity Company, to the plaintiff, St. Louis Trimming, Inc. The loss occurred before the premium applicable to the risk in question was paid. The District Court¹ construed a provision of the policy to bar coverage under these circumstances. The District Court has filed a thorough published opinion. St. Louis Trimming, Inc. v. American Credit Indem. Co., 924. F.Supp. 99 (E.D.Mo.1996). We have nothing of significance to add. We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court.

The dissenting opinion argues that American Credit’s conduct in accepting late payments of premiums amounts to a waiver of the policy provision in question, or estops American Credit to rely on the provision. For the reasons given at some length in the opinion of the District Court, we agree that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are not available here, because their use would allow the creation of coverage where, under the clear language of the policy, none exists. We point out, in addition, that the conduct of the insurer that is relied upon does not, in any event, amount to a waiver or estoppel. There is no past instance of the insurer’s paying a loss with respect to which the premium had not been paid at the time the loss occurred. Late payments of premiums were accepted, but in no case did the insurance company pay a loss that had occurred before the relevant premium payment.

[901]*901The insurance company is instructed to return to St. Louis Trimming, Inc., the premiums attributable to the loss that occurred in this case. On this understanding, the judgment is.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F.3d 900, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11899, 1997 WL 259207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-trimming-inc-v-american-credit-indemnity-company-a-company-of-ca8-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack