APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS COUNTY. Honorable Tracy L. Storie, Judge
Parrish, Shrum, Montgomery
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Parrish
Candice Ann Hamil (defendant) appeals from a judgment that declared American Family Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin (American Family) was not liable for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident. This court affirms.
Defendant and Mahmoud Gaber (Gaber) lived together at the time of the accident. They shared an apartment in Rolla, Missouri. They shared rent and utilities for the apartment. They had lived together for nearly a year. Each owned an automobile. At the time of the accident, Gaber was driving defendant's automobile. She was a passenger and was injured. Defendant sought recovery from Gaber.
Gaber had a policy of automobile insurance issued by American Family. The policy included the following language with respect to its liability coverage:
This coverage does not apply to:
9. Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use of any vehicle, other than your insured car, which is owned by or furnished or available for regular use by you or any resident of your household.
Gaber and defendant each had a set of keys for the other's vehicle for "emergency purposes." Gaber could remember driving defendant's automobile two times before the accident. Defendant had never driven Gaber's automobile.
The judgment from which defendant appeals declared:
That American Family Standard Insurance Company owes no duty to or has any liability to any party[ *fn1] herein resulting from [the automobile] accident [that involved Candice Hamil and Mahmoud Gaber].
Defendant's "point relied on" states:
THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO APPELLANT UNDER ITS POLICY OF INSURANCE IS ERRONEOUS WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SAID POLICY VIOLATE SECTION 303.190(3) R.S.Mo. (1988), AS AMENDED AND THEREFORE ARE VOID ON THEIR FACE.
The point relied on accuses the trial court of error in declaring that American Family's insurance policy did not provide coverage for defendant's injuries. Arguably, the claim that the provisions of the insurance policy "violate section 303.190(3) R.S.Mo. (1988)" states why defendant considers the ruling to be erroneous. However, there is no indication of what "provisions of said policy" defendant considers to be violative of the statute. As such, the point does not comply with the requirement of Rule 84.04(d) that a point relied on shall explain wherein the trial court's determination was erroneous. *fn2 Thus, this court's review will be limited to "looking to the argument portion of the brief . . . for the purpose of determining whether there has been plain error affecting ...