Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420

Section 375.420 does not allow a penalty or attorney's fees when an insurer has good reason to resist a claim that substantially exceeds the amount due.

Boenzle v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1953-06-16

This eliminates the points raised respecting plaintiff's right to recover penalties and attorneys' fees under § 375.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., unless plaintiff is entitled to such allowances by reason of defendants' failure to pay for the glass breakage. ... There was no obligation on the insurers to make a tender at their peril of the actual amount due under the policy, viz. $90, in the face of plaintiff's demand for a much greater sum. If plaintiff desired to place the insurers in the position of wilful wrongdoers he should have confined his claim to the amount he was actually entitled to recover. In demanding and suing for more he cannot complain of the defendants' refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 permits a vexatious refusal penalty when an insurer withholds an amount it admits owing, even if it has a good faith dispute over additional benefits.

Irelan v. Standard Mutual Association of Cassville · filed 1964-05-28

We have no doubt that defendant was not guilty of vexatious refusal (§ 375.420 RSMo., V.A.M.S.) in seeking determination of its obligation in respect to the full five hundred dollars. ... In this situation we believe that there was no reasonable cause to withhold payment of such admitted sum, or to make its payment conditioned upon the release of the disputed amount.

Section 375.420 permits a vexatious refusal claim for an unpaid loss even when the insurer has paid part of the claim.

Garcia v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company of America · filed 2023-04-06

However, Defendant produces no case law indicating that, as a matter of law, a plaintiff cannot bring a vexatious refusal claim if the insurer has paid some, but not all, of the alleged loss. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff claims a loss under the policy that it has not paid. Therefore, Defendant’s argument is denied.

Section 375.420 allows a penalty and attorney’s fees when an insurer vexatiously refuses to pay a covered loss.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp · filed 1953-06-19

The question as to what conduct on the part of an insurer will constitute vexatious refusal to pay a loss within the meaning of the applicable statute of Missouri, Section 375.420, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., has been considered by this Court a number of times. ... While we do not question the sincerity of the assertions of counsel for the defendant that its failure to pay was warranted, we cannot say that the District Court either misconceived or misapplied the law of Missouri in reaching the conclusion that the failure of the defendant to pay the loss was vexatious and that the defendant was legally liable for the penalty and attorney’s fees assessed against it.

Section 375.420 allows a jury to award damages of up to ten percent of an insurance loss and a reasonable attorney’s fee for vexatious refusal to pay; filing suit can serve as a demand for payment.

Dixon v. Business Men's Assurance Co. of America · filed 1955-10-10

Section 375.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., provides in effect that when it appears at the trial of an action that an insurance company has vexatiously refused to pay a loss under its insurance contract, the jury may allow plaintiff damages not to exceed ten per cent of the amount of the loss and a reasonable attorney’s fee. ... The filing of the action was a demand for payment and defendant refused payment by denying liability on the ground that plaintiff had released it of all claims.

Section 375.420 permits a penalty and attorney’s fee when an insurer’s refusal to pay is willful and without reasonable cause, judged by the facts apparent before trial.

Yankoff v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company · filed 1956-04-17

The rule is that while affirmative proof is not required to show vexatious refusal, the penalty should not be inflicted unless the evidence and circumstances show such refusal was willful and without reasonable cause as the facts appeared to a reasonable and prudent man before the trial. ... After careful and exhaustive consideration of the facts and circumstances, we have concluded that the evidence brings this action within that class of cases where the question of vexatious refusal to pay becomes an issue of fact for submission to the jury.

Section 375.420 permits damages and attorney’s fees for an insurer’s vexatious refusal to pay, but requires substantial evidence that the refusal was willful and without reasonable cause.

Ireland v. Manufacturers & Merchants Indemnity Co. · filed 1957-02-05

The statute, Section 375.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which authorizes damages and an attorney’s fee upon a finding that the company’s refusal to pay was vexatious, is highly penal and is strictly construed. ... The penalty should not be inflicted unless the evidence shows that such refusal was wilful and without reasonable cause as the facts appear to a reasonable and prudent man before trial. ... We hold that plaintiff failed to produce any substantial facts upon which to base a finding of vexatious refusal to pay, and if upon a new trial no such showing be offered, this issue should not be submitted to the jury.

Section 375.420 covers hail insurance, but an insurer with reasonable grounds to dispute the extent of a loss is not subject to vexatious-refusal penalties.

Bechtolt v. Home Insurance Co. · filed 1959-04-13

Policies of insurance whether relating to hail, or cyclone, or lightning, have to do with the indemnification against loss' to property by the elements. Such being true, then, of course, hail insurance is “like” and of the same “kind and character” as cyclone or lightning insurance, specifically named in the statute, and falls within the general phrase “or other insurance” under the rule of ejusdem generis. ... Thus it clearly appears that defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the extent of plaintiff’s loss was not nearly as great as she claimed. It follows that the court erred in submitting the issue of vexatious refusal to pay to the jury.

Section 375.420 permits a penalty for vexatious refusal to pay when an insurer’s refusal is willful and lacks reasonable cause based on the facts available before trial.

Pfingsten v. Franklin Life Insurance Company · filed 1959-12-14

The word “vexatiously”, as used in the statute, Section 375.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., means without reasonable or probable cause or excuse. ... The test is whether the evidence and circumstances were such as to show the insurer’s refusal was willful and without reasonable cause as the facts would have appeared to a reasonable man before trial. ... Consequently, we hold that the trial court erred in submitting an instruction on vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 does not impose a vexatious-refusal penalty when an insurer contests a novel, reasonably debatable coverage issue in good faith.

Payne v. Western Casualty and Surety Company · filed 1964-04-06

The precise question presented to the insurer was novel and not entirely free of reasonable debate. There is nothing to indicate that the insurer did not act in good faith. Under such circumstances it is entitled to have the issue involved passed upon without the imposition of a statutory penalty for vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 requires proof that an insurer’s refusal to pay was willful and without reasonable cause, judged by the facts as they appeared before trial.

Kissel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company · filed 1964-06-15

In order for plaintiffs-to recover for vexatious refusal to pay they must produce evidence which shows that the refusal to pay was willful and without reasonable cause as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent man before trial.

Section 375.420 permits damages and attorney’s fees when an insurer refuses to pay a loss without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.

Brugioni v. Maryland Casualty Company · filed 1964-09-14

The decisions have generally held that the word “vexatiously”, as used in the statute, means without reasonable or probable cause or excuse. ... Under the evidence and circumstances shown by the record, we are convinced that the refusal of the Casualty Company to pay the loss and the ensuing conduct of the litigation was not vexatious in the statutory sense.

Section 375.420 permits a vexatious-refusal claim to go to the jury when the evidence supports a finding that the insurer willfully refused to pay without reasonable cause.

Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, a Corporation v. Norris Grain Company, a Tennessee Corporation, and Norris Grain Co · filed 1965-03-15

In the light of the liberal standards, by Missouri’s courts erected, for the administration and application of Section 375.420, Vernon’s Annotated Missouri Statutes, and of the whole evidence in this case, and appreciatively mindful of the highly penal character of the statute and of its sanction, the court is persuaded that the trial judge was entirely warranted in imparting to the jury the portion of the charge pertinent to that statute, and that, in such phase of the charge, he proceeded correctly. ... It is simply convinced that the record discloses evidence and a setting of litigation from which, upon mature study and reflection, the jury was warranted in concluding that, in denying liability and refusing to pay, under the policy, the defendant’s course was willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts appeared to a reasonable and prudent man before the filing of this suit.

Section 375.420 does not allow vexatious-delay damages or attorney’s fees when an insurer has reasonable or probable cause or excuse for refusing to pay.

Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Aetna Insurance · filed 1971-07-30

The court further finds and concludes that defendants’ refusal to pay was not without reasonable or probable cause or excuse, and that defendant Kletzker is not therefore entitled to recover 10% for vexatious delay and attorneys’ fees on account of such delay.

Section 375.420 does not allow a penalty or attorney fees for vexatious refusal to pay when the insurer had a novel legal question and a genuine factual coverage dispute to litigate.

Crawford v. Mid-America Insurance Company · filed 1972-12-04

Since the matter of an insurer being bound by its advertising matter submitted to prospective group insurance policyholders has not heretofore been adopted in this state it would be unfair to hold Mid-America to that theory in determining whether its refusal to pay the loss was vexatious under the statute, Section 375.420, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. That was certainly an open and new question of law which at and before the time of trial Mid-America had a right to litigate.

Section 375.420 requires evidence that an insurer’s refusal to pay was wilful, persistent, and without reasonable cause as the facts appeared before trial.

Paul and Majorie Howarth v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Company · filed 1973-07-25

Assuming, arguendo, that the insurer had no contractual right to demand the insureds sign a loan receipt in order to protect its subrogation interest, we find no evidence to show such request to be vexatious or prejudicial to an insured.

Section 375.420 permits a vexatious-refusal claim to go to the jury when evidence supports a finding that the insurer acted in bad faith by insisting on a measure of damages contrary to established law.

Citizens Discount and Investment Corp. v. Dixon · filed 1973-08-28

The jury could find under this evidence that insurer was not acting in good faith by its efforts to effect disposition of the matter on the basis of replacement value instead of stated value less depreciation, and was not entitled to litigate on an issue previously ruled upon by the courts of this state, to-wit: the measure of damages in a valued insurance policy.

Section 375.420 permits vexatious refusal penalties against a surety that willfully refuses to pay a covered claim without reasonable cause.

Housing Authority of Clinton Ex Rel. Evans Electrical Construction Co. v. Baumann · filed 1974-07-01

The record before us clearly warranted the imposition of the penalties under Section 375.420 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. ... No reasonable cause appears for the refusal by United and under the circumstances of this case there is ample justification to conclude that such refusal was willful and the statutory penalties were properly imposed.

Section 375.420 permits damages and attorney fees when an insurer vexatiously refuses to pay a loss based on suspicion without substantial supporting evidence.

Hounihan v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Missouri · filed 1975-05-01

The defendant’s remaining point concerns the court’s finding that its refusal to pay the fire loss was vexatious and the imposition of damages and attorneys fees under § 375.420, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. ... On the record presented the trial judge could find the defendant’s refusal to pay the loss was vexatious.

Section 375.420 permits a penalty and attorney fees for an insurer’s vexatious refusal to pay only when the refusal was wilful and without reasonable cause or excuse, judged from the facts as they appeared before trial.

Groves v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 1976-09-13

The law is well settled that the penalty for vexatious refusal of an insurance company to pay the claim of its insured should not be imposed unless the facts and circumstances surrounding the company’s refusal to pay show that the refusal was wilful and without reasonable cause or excuse, as the facts would have appeared to a reasonable person before trial. ... The court erred in submitting the issue of vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 permits a ten percent penalty for vexatious refusal to pay when an insurer uses delaying tactics and acts in bad faith, even if the insured’s underlying liability presented a close legal question.

Taylor v. Commercial Union Insurance · filed 1979-03-28

Although plaintiff’s liability in the Pasco actions constituted a vigorously litigated and close question of law, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to a ten per cent (10%) penalty under § 375.420 RSMo 1969, because of defendant’s conduct clearly reflecting delaying tactics, bad faith and a willful and recalcitrant attitude towards the plaintiff.

Section 375.420 permits attorney fees when the evidence and circumstances justify finding that an insurer’s refusal to pay was vexatious.

Berry v. Federal Kemper Insurance Co. · filed 1981-09-21

In order to recover it is not necessary to show affirmatively that the delay was vexatious; it is only required that the evidence and circumstances be sufficient to justify the conclusion that refusing to pay was vexatious.

Section 375.420 allows recovery for a vexatious refusal to defend, but an insurer’s refusal is not vexatious when the insured’s late notice violates a condition of coverage.

Columbia Union National Bank v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company · filed 1982-02-08

The insured will be allowed to recover for a refusal to defend under an insurance policy when that refusal is vexatious. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.420. ... Under the facts of this case, there was no vexatious refusal to defend when Hartford failed to represent Columbia Union under the blanket bond. It was reasonable for Hartford to decline to defend the suit against Columbia Union because, as discussed above, Columbia Union gave such late notice of its potential loss. This late notice violated a condition precedent to coverage under the policy; therefore, Hartford’s refusal to defend was not vexatious.

Section 375.420 permits damages for an insurer’s refusal to pay only when the refusal lacks any reasonable or probable cause or excuse.

Perkins v. Philadelphia Life Insurance · filed 1984-03-05

An insurer is subject to damages under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.420 only if the refusal to pay was without any reasonable or probable cause or excuse. ... Applying the foregoing facts to the applicable legal standards, the defendant reasonably refused to pay the life insurance proceeds to the plaintiff, and is, therefore, not subject to the penalties of § 375.-420 (R.S.Mo.1978).

Section 375.420 requires a plaintiff alleging vexatious refusal to pay to show that the insurer willfully refused payment without reasonable cause, judged by the facts apparent at the time.

Morey E. Storhaug and Bernadine M. Storhaug v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company · filed 1984-11-16

Under Mo. Rev.Stat. § 375.420 (1975), to demonstrate a vexatious refusal of a claim, plaintiffs must show “that the insurer’s refusal to pay the loss was willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonable person.” ... At the time of refusal, State Farm did not appear to have a vexatious or recalcitrant attitude.

Section 375.420 provides no basis for relief when an insurer’s delay in paying a claim was reasonable.

Pearce v. General American Life Insurance Company · filed 1980-12-10

It follows that there was no vexatious delay by General as charged in Count II, and therefore no basis for invoking Mo.Rev. Stat. § 375.420.

Section 375.420 permits penalties for an insurer’s refusal to pay only when the refusal is willful and without reasonable cause or excuse; an honest disagreement about coverage or damages does not meet that standard.

Hampton Foods, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Hampton Foods, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company · filed 1986-03-24

For similar reasons, we reject Hampton’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to award penalties for vexatious refusal to pay under Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 375.420 and 375.296 (1978). To recover, Hampton must show that Aetna’s failure to pay “was willful and without reasonable cause or excuse.” ... Hampton has failed to meet this standard because there are several questions of fact and law relating to coverage and damages upon which there could be “an honest difference of opinion.”

Section 375.420 permits damages for vexatious refusal to pay only when an insurer denies a loss willfully and without reasonable cause, judged as the facts would appear to a reasonably prudent person.

Turnbough v. Farmers Insurance Co. · filed 1986-11-12

Under § 375.420 RSMo 1978, to recover for vexatious refusal to pay, one must show that insurer’s refusal to pay a loss was willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonably prudent person. ... The insurer reasonably refused to pay appellant’s claim, because there was a substantial question of fact whether appellant’s car was “stolen” as that term is used within the insurance policy.

Section 375.420 does not allow vexatious refusal damages or attorney fees when the insurer acted reasonably.

Grantham v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1986-12-16

The Granthams also argue that they should be awarded damages for vexatious refusal to pay, as well as their attorneys’ fees, under § 375.420 RSMo 1978. The trial court found there was no vexatious refusal to pay. There was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Shelter acted reasonably, and on this record there is no sufficient reason to disturb the trial court’s finding of fact.

Section 375.420 allows recovery for a vexatious refusal to defend when the insurer lacked reasonable or probable cause or excuse, judged objectively on the facts before trial.

Ott v. Crews · filed 1987-10-01

We do not find that Shelter’s refusal was vexatious within the meaning of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.420.

Section 375.420 does not impose vexatious refusal damages when an insurer acts in good faith and has reasonable cause to seek a judicial determination of coverage.

Liberty Life Insurance v. Schaffer · filed 1988-08-04

We conclude that Liberty’s refusal to pay was not without reasonable cause, nor was its attitude vexatious or recalcitrant. Based on our review of the record, it seems apparent that a legitimate question existed as to coverage. An insurer, acting in good faith, may insist on judicial determination of such questions without subjecting itself to vexatious refusal penalties.

Section 375.420 requires proof that an insurer’s refusal to pay was willful and without reasonable cause; a litigable issue does not preclude a penalty if the insurer acted vexatiously and recalcitrantly.

JOACHIM SAV. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. · filed 1988-09-27

To recover for vexatious delay in refusing to pay on an insurance claim, one must show that the insurer’s refusal was willful and without reasonable cause. ... The existence of a litigable issue will not necessarily preclude a penalty for vexatious delay if there is evidence that the insurer’s attitude was vexatious and recalcitrant. ... We find that the award of damages for vexatious delay was error, and, it is therefore reversed.

Section 375.420 treats an insurer’s refusal to pay as vexatious when it lacks reasonable or probable cause or excuse.

Rosenberg v. Missouri Title Guaranty Co. · filed 1988-12-20

Vexatious refusal to pay pursuant to § 375.420, RSMo 1986, means refusal to pay without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.

Section 375.420 permits damages and attorney’s fees for a willful refusal to pay without reasonable cause; an honest, reasonable dispute over coverage does not qualify.

New Madrid County Reorganized School District No. 1 v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 1990-05-29

We agree completely with the district court that the School District has not shown that Continental Casualty’s refusal to pay was willful and without reasonable cause. It is clear that Continental Casualty entertained an honest difference of opinion as to the policy’s coverage. Although its position ultimately was rejected, that position was by no means frivolous or unreasonable.

Section 375.420 requires a plaintiff seeking a vexatious refusal penalty to show that the insurer willfully refused to pay without reasonable cause.

Schaffer v. Bess · filed 1991-10-15

It is well-settled that to support the imposition of a penalty under this statute, the plaintiff must show that the insurer’s refusal to pay the loss was willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent person.

Section 375.420 permits damages for a surety’s vexatious refusal to pay on a bond when the refusal is willful and without reasonable cause or excuse.

Lindsey Masonry Co. v. Jenkins & Associates Inc. · filed 1995-02-07

A claim for vexatious refusal to pay is based on § 375.420 RSMo (1986) which statutorily gives damages for a surety’s vexatious refusal to pay on a bond. ... “Vexatious” means without reasonable cause or excuse, and “there must be evidence from which it may be found that the refusal to pay the loss was willful and without reasonable cause as that fact would appear to be a reasonable and prudent man prior to trial.” ... There was no evidence that St. Paul had failed to investigate the claim or had no reasonable cause to deny the claim.

Section 375.420 allows penalties and attorney fees for an insurer’s refusal to pay without reasonable cause, and a litigable dispute does not bar a penalty when the insurer’s attitude is vexatious and recalcitrant.

United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Historic Preservation Trust · filed 2001-09-12

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the Trust presented sufficient evidence that United Fire’s attitude throughout the investigation of its claim was vexatious and recalcitrant.

Section 375.420 permits a vexatious refusal penalty even when the insurer’s duty to perform presents a disputed question of fact or law, if the insurer’s response to the claim is vexatious and obdurate.

Davis v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. · filed 1987-03-17

That a litigable issue of fact or of law as to an obligation to perform under the policy subsists does not preclude the vexatious penalty where the posture of the insurer to the claim of the insured is vexatious and obdurate.

Section 375.420 requires an insured to show that the insurer’s refusal to pay was willful and without reasonable cause, viewed as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent person.

Herpel v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 1990-07-17

To support a claim of vexatious refusal to pay proceeds of an insurance policy, the insured must show the insurer’s refusal to pay is willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent person. ... In the case at bar, respondent’s refusal to pay appellant was reasonable, as she was not entitled to proceeds either by the express terms of the contract or by law. Point denied.

Section 375.420 permits damages for vexatious refusal to pay only when the insurer’s refusal is willful and without reasonable cause; a valid policy defense defeats the claim for those damages and attorney’s fees.

Hite v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1991-07-09

Noncompensatory damages for vexatious refusal of an insurer to pay a claim are available pursuant to § 375.420, RSMo.1986. In order to recover such damages, Glenda Hite must show that American Family’s refusal to pay the loss is willful and without cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent person. ... By prevailing in its defense of the claim on the policy, American Family must prevail on the claims for damages for vexatious refusal and for Glenda Hite’s attorney’s fees.

Section 375.420 requires proof that the insurer willfully refused to pay without reasonable cause, judged by the facts available when payment was due.

Boatmen's First National Bank of Kansas City v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. · filed 1993-07-13

Additionally, to support the imposition of the statutory penalty for vexatious refusal to pay, the insured must show that the insurer’s refusal to pay the loss was willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent person at the time the insurer was called upon to pay.

Section 375.420 permits a penalty for a surety’s refusal to pay only when the refusal is willful and without reasonable cause.

Marcomb v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. · filed 1996-10-22

The statutory penalty for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be imposed unless the evidence and the circumstances of the case establish that the surety’s refusal to pay the claim was willful and without reasonable cause. ... Our having concluded that Hartford was correct belies a contention that it did not have a meritorious reason for refusing to pay more than $1350.

Section 375.420 does not automatically bar vexatious refusal damages when the insurer has an open question of law or fact.

Hopkins v. American Economy Insurance Co. · filed 1995-02-21

As shown from the cases cited above, just having open issues of law or fact do not in and of themselves insulate an insurer from damages under § 375.296 and .420.

Section 375.420 requires a claimant seeking vexatious refusal damages to prove that the insurer refused payment without reasonable cause.

Wunsch v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada · filed 2002-10-15

As an element of her vexatious delay claim against Sun Life under § 375.420, Ms. Wunsch is required to prove that Sun Life acted without reasonable cause in refusing to make payment upon her demand in accordance with her deceased husband’s life insurance policy. Sun Life has shown on the undisputed facts that it acted with reasonable cause as a matter of law in requiring a death certificate prior as “Due Proof’ of her husband’s death required by the policy prior to payment of the proceeds. Thus, Sun Life negated at least one of Ms. Wunsch’s required proof elements and is entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

Section 375.420 permits additional damages when an insured proves both a breach of the insurance policy and a vexatious refusal to pay.

Shirkey v. Guarantee Trust Life & Insurance Co. · filed 2004-08-10

Vexatious refusal to pay is not a claim that stands alone. A plaintiff brings a claim for breach of the insurance policy when the insurance company refuses to pay, which elements Mr. Shirkey asserted in his petition. Then, if the plaintiff also proves that the refusal to pay was vexatious, the plaintiff may request additional damages under section 375.420 RSMo. (2000).

Section 375.420 does not allow recovery for refusal to pay when ambiguous policy language gives the insurer a reasonable basis to deny the claim.

Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co. · filed 2005-03-30

In light of the hopelessly ambiguous language in Endorsement No. 4, which could plausibly be interpreted in American Home’s favor, Insituform will not be able to establish that American Home denied its claim “without reasonable cause or excuse.”

Section 375.420 does not impose vexatious refusal damages when an insurer has reasonable cause to believe it has a meritorious defense to payment.

Thornburgh Insulation, Inc. v. J.W. Terrill, Inc. · filed 2007-09-18

As to the first argument, Travelers’ refusal to pay more than the limit of liability for the events at issue here cannot be considered vexatious under this statute. Travelers had reasonable cause to believe it had a meritorious defense to paying the full amount based on the definition of “occurrence,” especially because there have heretofore been no Missouri cases on point.

Section 375.420 allows a plausibly pleaded vexatious refusal claim to proceed despite an insurer’s partial advance payment.

Jameson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 2012-05-14

The Court finds that plaintiff has made a plausible claim for vexatious refusal to pay at this stage of the litigation; to the extent that defendant argues that its advance payment of $23,000 insulates it from litigation, that is a claim that would be better presented at the summary judgment stage, when there has been some development of the record as to plaintiffs injuries. Thus, the Court cannot find plaintiffs vexatious refusal to pay claim as pled in Count II of her complaint to be futile.

Section 375.420 permits additional damages for refusing to pay an insurance loss without reasonable cause; paying the amounts required by the governing contracts is not a refusal to pay.

32nd Street Surgery Center, LLC v. Right Choice Managed Care · filed 2016-04-26

In light of our determination that contracts—first, the insurance policies and later, the ancillary-provider agreement—controlled the amounts the insurers were obligated to pay for 32nd Street’s services, we fail to see how the insurers’ undisputed payment pursuant to those contracts could constitute a refusal to pay a loss under them.

Section 375.420 permits a claim for additional damages when an insurer refuses to pay a covered loss without reasonable cause or excuse, provided the insured also pleads breach of contract.

M & B Oil, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2021-08-06

A party must also plead a claim for breach of contract to establish a claim for vexatious refusal to pay. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 allows recovery for vexatious refusal to pay only when the insurer refuses payment without reasonable cause or excuse and the insured obtains judgment on the policy.

Lauritsen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-11

As such, there is no evidence that Defendant’s failure to pay was without reasonable cause or excuse. In any event, “[t]here can be no recovery for vexatious refusal where there is no judgment for the plaintiff on the insurance policy.”

Section 375.420 permits damages for vexatious refusal to pay when the insured has a policy, the insurer refuses to pay, and the refusal lacks reasonable cause or excuse.

Thomas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2024-01-18

To recover damages for vexatious refusal to pay, Plaintiff must show: (1) she had an insurance policy with State Farm; (2) State Farm refused to pay; and (3) its refusal was “without reasonable cause or excuse.” Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 188 S.W.3d 454, 457 (Mo. 2006), as modified on denial of reh’g (Apr. 11, 2006).

Section 375.420 permits recovery of a monetary penalty and attorney fees in addition to policy benefits when an insurer refuses to pay without reasonable cause or excuse.

Cogley v. Midvale Indemnity Company · filed 2024-08-09

Under Missouri's vexatious refusal to pay statute, a plaintiff may recover (in addition to amounts owed under the policy) a monetary penalty and attorneys' fees “if it appears from the evidence that such company has refused to pay such loss without reasonable cause or excuse[.]” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420.

Section 375.420 permits statutory damages and attorney’s fees when an insurer refuses to pay a policy loss without reasonable cause or excuse.

Kar v. Safeco Insurance Company of America · filed 2025-08-12

Under Missouri law, an insured party may recover statutory damages and attorney’s fees when an insurance company refuses to pay for a “loss under a policy” if the company “has refused to pay such loss without reasonable cause or excuse.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420. ... As Plaintiffs have waived arguments in opposition to the entry of summary judgment on their claim for vexatious refusal to pay, the Court finds Safeco is entitled to summary judgment as to Count II.

Section 375.420 requires evidence that the insurer refused to pay without reasonable cause or excuse; an award under the policy alone does not establish vexatious refusal.

Goebel & Company Furniture, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Company · filed 2026-02-05

As for vexatious refusal, Plaintiffs simply recite the same evidence presented on the claim under the policy and then argue that it would be inconsistent for the jury to fail to award vexatious damages once they found any damages under the policy. But that is not the law. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420 (requiring evidence that insurer has refused to pay without reasonable cause or excuse).

Section 375.420 does not permit vexatious-refusal penalties when an insurer has reasonable grounds to pursue a good faith defense.

Haase v. Business Men's Assurance Co. of America · filed 1955-02-07

Section 375.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., providing for such penalties, is highly penal and must be strictly construed. It is not to be invoked to intimidate a good faith defense. ... In the instant case there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of defendant. On the other hand the record discloses that defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that it had a meritorious defense. It follows that the court erred in assessing penalties against defendant for alleged vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 does not allow an attorney’s fee for vexatious refusal to pay when the insurer reasonably disputes the amount of the loss and there is no substantial evidence of vexatious delay.

Jones v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company · filed 1955-10-03

In our opinion there was no substantial evidence of vexatious delay on defendant’s part and it was error to submit that issue to the jury.

Section 375.420 does not impose vexatious-refusal penalties when an insurer contests a genuine dispute over liability in good faith.

Burch v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1958-09-26

An insurance company is allowed to entertain an honest difference of opinion regarding its liability, and so long as it acts in good faith, it may contest either an issue of fact or an issue of law without subjecting itself to the penalty of the statute. Clearly, in view of the perplexing problems of construction of Missouri decisions here, there is a substantial basis of difference of opinion as to the law. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that statutory penalties have been permitted in cases which furnish the basis for the ruling here. It is my conclusion, therefore, that plaintiffs are not entitled to the statutory penalties for vexatious refusal to pay.

An insurer that has a good faith basis to litigate an open question about coverage is not liable for vexatious-refusal damages or attorney’s fees.

Cohen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company · filed 1969-07-15

It is a well settled rule of law, where there is an open question of fact or law determinative of the insured’s liability, the insurer, acting in good faith, may insist on a judicial determination of such questions without being penalized therefor. ... We now rule the trial court as trier of the facts erred in allowing damages for vexatious refusal by the defendant and for reasonable attorney’s fees for plaintiff’s attorney.

Section 375.420 does not permit damages for vexatious refusal or attorney’s fees when an insurer acting in good faith seeks judicial resolution of an open question about its liability.

Cox v. Washington National Insurance Company · filed 1974-12-30

The plaintiff’s petition also requested damages for vexatious delay and attorney’s fees, and the defendant asserts that such damages and attorney’s fees are not properly allowable in this cause under Section 375.420 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The defendant’s position in this regard is sound. It is well settled that where there is an open question of fact or law determinative of the insurers liability, the insurer, acting in good faith, may insist on a judicial determination of such questions without being penalized therefor. ... Under that rule and the admitted factual dispute on this record concerning the question of the plaintiff’s exposure to serious danger and risk to health in returning to work, no damages for vexatious refusal nor attorney’s fees should be permitted.

Section 375.420 does not permit a vexatious refusal penalty when the insurer had reasonable grounds before trial to believe it had a valid defense.

Consumer's Money Order Corp. of America v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. · filed 1964-12-15

If there is an open question of law, or if under the facts as they appear before trial, the company has reasonable grounds to believe it has a meritorious defense, it should not be penalized under this statute. ... We find no evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendant. We also believe that a person presented with the facts of this case could reasonably believe there was a valid defense to the action. For that reason, we hold that the court erred in submitting to the jury the issue of vexatious refusal to pay the claim.

Section 375.420 does not impose a penalty or attorney’s fees when an insurer in good faith seeks a judicial ruling on an open question about coverage.

Kay v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · filed 1977-03-08

Appellant was within its rights in forcing a judicial construction of Policy 15351-G. The penalty and attorney’s fees available to the insured under Section 375.-420, supra, were erroneously applied in this case.

Section 375.420 does not permit a vexatious-refusal penalty when an insurer reasonably believes it has a meritorious defense to a coverage dispute.

Welch v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1978-06-16

An insurer may question an issue and contest an issue of fact relating to its liability if it has reasonable cause to believe and does believe that there is no liability under its policy and that it has a meritorious defense. ... We find no basis here for the imposition of a penalty for vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 does not allow vexatious-refusal damages or attorney’s fees when the insurer has a reasonable defense, even if the jury finds against it.

Frisella v. Reserve Life Insurance Co. of Dallas · filed 1979-05-22

The mere fact that there is a jury verdict adverse to the insurer does not make it liable for attorney’s fees. Obviously with the result reached in this decision, Reserve Life did have a reasonable and meritorious defense to the Frisellas’ claim and cannot be subjected to payment of vexatious damages or attorney’s fees under § 375.420.

An insurer’s reasonable belief that its policy provides no coverage ordinarily precludes vexatious refusal damages and attorney’s fees under § 375.420.

Francka v. Fire Insurance Exchange · filed 1984-03-07

We reach a contrary result as to the attorney’s fees awarded under § 375.420, RSMo 1978. The evidence that plaintiff set the fire established that defendant believed and had reasonable cause to believe that there was no liability under its policy. This ordinarily would preclude vexatious damages or attorney’s fees.

Section 375.420 does not allow vexatious refusal damages when an insurer is justified in denying coverage.

Faygal v. Shelter Insurance Co. · filed 1985-02-19

Defendant was justified in its denial of coverage under the insurance policy, its refusal to pay was a fortiori not vexatious.

Section 375.420 does not support a vexatious refusal penalty when an insurer makes a good faith payment it believes reasonable.

Desmond v. American Insurance Co. · filed 1990-03-22

We do not believe the facts of this case support appellant’s proposition that American should be required to pay a penalty for vexatious refusal to pay pursuant to § 375.420 RSMo. 1975. While American’s payment to appellant was under the theory that it was a direct payment by its insured rather than a payment to a third party beneficiary, it was a good faith payment for medical expenses nonetheless. It was payment American believed to be reasonable.

Under § 375.420, substantial open questions of law and fact can defeat a claim for vexatious-refusal fees and penalties despite occasional petty posturing by the insurer.

Nodaway Valley Bank v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 1989-06-23

Finally, I reject plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and penalties for vexatious refusal to pay under § 375.420 RSMo. There were significant and substantial open questions of state law and of fact (particularly a wide range of respectable legal appraisals necessary for an apportionment). Regardless of whether in this complex controversy the insurer and its counsel may have engaged in occasional petty posturing on particular points I must conclude that viewing the matter as a whole there is no basis for imposition of fees and penalties.

Section 375.420 does not impose vexatious refusal damages or attorney fees when an insurer has a reasonable factual basis to deny a claim pending judicial determination.

Mears v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1993-05-11

As a result, we hold that defendant’s refusal to pay the insurance proceeds short of a judicial determination was reasonable, not vexatious and not recalcitrant.

Section 375.420 does not impose a vexatious refusal penalty when an insurer or surety reasonably disputes an open question of liability.

Missouri ex rel. Pemiscot County v. Western Surety Co. · filed 1995-04-03

In our view, the district court’s well-justified finding of an open issue of law establishes to a legal certainty that, on this record, Western could never be liable for a statutory vexatious refusal penalty, and therefore the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,-000.

Section 375.420 does not impose a vexatious refusal penalty when an insurer reasonably believes it has a meritorious coverage defense and seeks a judicial determination.

Hoops v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-14

Under the circumstances presented in this case, Auto Owners’ refusal to pay, as a matter of law, is not vexatious within the meaning of the statute.

Section 375.420 allows a vexatious refusal claim to proceed when evidence could show that an insurer delayed or refused payment without reasonable cause or excuse.

Green v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2025-05-12

Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there is evidence that Nationwide’s delay and refusal to cover all the damage to the sunroom roof was vexatious and recalcitrant and without reasonable cause or excuse.

Section 375.420 permits recovery of attorney’s fees incurred after a vexatious refusal to pay even if the insurer tenders the policy amount before suit, but fees are limited to services through the time of tender.

Willis v. American National Life Insurance Co. · filed 1956-01-28

At the time the tender was inade, the plaintiff was entitled (as the jury found) to a recovery on two separate items, one for the face amount of the policy and the other for that which the statute had given her. Neither of these rights was extinguished because the defendant changed its position and decided to pay one. ... We think the evidence and the recovery should have been restricted to the value of the services of the attorney (and there 'is no doubt that such services were performed and were of value to the insured) after the vexatious refusal and up to and including the time the tender was made.

Section 375.420 permits penalties and attorney’s fees only when substantial evidence supports a finding that an insurer’s refusal to pay was willful, unreasonable, and without probable cause.

Nelson v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 1973-06-05

That case, however, makes clear that under Missouri law “each case must turn on its own particular facts,” and that an award under the statute is not proper unless there is substantial evidence to support a finding that a defendant’s refusal was willful, unreasonable, and without probable cause.

Section 375.420 permits the fact finder to determine damages of up to 10% of the loss and reasonable attorney fees, but an award of attorney fees requires evidence.

Williams v. United Insurance Co. of America · filed 1981-06-02

Section 375.420 RSMo 1978, upon which plaintiff relies, permits the fact finder to determine damages (not to exceed 10% of the loss) and reasonable attorney fees. ... At least it is clear the issue of attorney fees required evidence. ... Here, no evidence was presented, nor any attempt to do so. The issue was waived and abandoned by plaintiff.

Section 375.420 permits an attorney fee award for vexatious refusal to pay without an additional award of percentage damages.

DeWitt v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1984-03-20

Defendant’s last point contest the awarding of attorneys’ fees without an award of percentage damages under § 375.420 and the evidentiary basis upon which the jury determined the amount of attorneys’ fees. ... We conclude that the award of attorneys fees alone is not improper.

Section 375.420 allows damages and reasonable attorney’s fees for vexatious refusal to pay, in addition to the insured’s loss and interest.

Hester v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1987-06-09

Sec. 375.420 RSMo 1986 authorizes damages and reasonable attorney’s fees for vexatious refusal to pay. Those awards are in addition to the amount of the loss and interest. The interest award therefore is not conditioned upon vexatious refusal to pay.

Section 375.420 requires evidence from which a jury can determine a reasonable attorney fee before the fee question may be submitted to it.

Russell v. Farmers & Merchants Insurance Co. · filed 1992-06-09

The record before us contains no evidence from which the jury could have determined the amount of a reasonable attorney fee. The trial court erred in submitting the issue of attorney fees to the jury.

Section 375.420 allows vexatious refusal damages of up to 20% of the first $1,500 of the loss and 10% of the remainder, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.

Boyd v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-29

The Missouri vexatious-refusal statute allows a court or jury to award “damages not to exceed twenty percent of the first fifteen hundred dollars of the loss, and ten percent of the amount of the loss in excess of fifteen hundred dollars and a reasonable attorney’s fee[.]” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.420.

Section 375.420 allows attorney’s fees for an insurer’s vexatious refusal to pay an insurance loss.

S&B Ventures, LLC v. Blackboard Insurance Company · filed 2022-06-14

This is an insurance coverage action alleging breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay a claim pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 375.296, 375.420.1 (Doc. 1.) ... (2) Attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,014.50.

Section 375.420 allows reasonable attorney’s fees incurred before the insured files suit.

Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. · filed 2025-08-28

Even strictly construed, § 375.420 places no parameters for when attorneys’ fees may begin to accrue.

Section 375.420 permits damages of up to 20% of the first $1,500 of loss, 10% of the remaining loss, and a reasonable attorney’s fee for vexatious refusal to pay.

Bradley · filed 2026-02-10

The Court finds that under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420 the maximum statutory penalty in this case would be $5,150,2 totaling non-fee damages at $55,150.3 ... As such, the Court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement has not been met in this case and thus this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 375.420 permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees incurred before suit is filed.

Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. · filed 2025-11-17

Even strictly construed, § 375.420 places no parameters for when attorneys’ fees may begin to accrue.

Section 375.420 does not allow vexatious-refusal damages or attorney’s fees when the claimant is not entitled to substantial damages on the underlying claim.

State ex rel. Koste v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Baltimore · filed 1960-05-17

It is our conclusion that under the authorities, relator is not entitled to substantial damages in this action. We also find there is no merit to relator’s appeal wherein he complains of that part of the judgment denying recovery of damages and an attorney’s fees under the vexatious refusal to pay statute (Section 375.420 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.).

Section 375.420 permits attorney’s fees only when an insurer vexatiously refuses to pay a loss.

Duckworth v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1970-02-24

In the absence of vexatious refusal, attorney’s fees should not be allowed. We therefore rule in favor of defendant on this point.

Section 375.420 cannot support a request for attorney fees raised for the first time on appeal without pleading or evidence of vexatious conduct.

Heshion Motors, Inc. v. Western International Hotels · filed 1980-05-05

The only statute mentioned by Western in its motion before this court for an allowance of attorney fees and attendant expenses incurred in resisting American’s appeal is an oblique reference to Section 375.420, RSMo 1978, absent any pleading or facts being adduced, below or on appeal, that American’s conduct was “vexatious” within the purview of said statute or otherwise. ... In reality, Western’s vague reference to Section 375.420, supra, seeks to broach a new cause of action for the first time on appeal by its motion for an allowance of attorney fees and attendant expenses incurred in pursuing its claim against American on the policy of liability insurance. It may summarily be said that such will not be countenanced.

Section 375.420 permits a jury to award attorney’s fees for an insurer’s refusal to pay without reasonable cause or excuse, even if it awards no vexatious damages.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Woods · filed 1983-12-22

Under § 375.420, if the refusal is without reasonable cause or excuse, the jury “may” make an award of damages and attorney’s fees. ... This could cause them to believe, correctly we think, that they could award either damages or attorney’s fees or both.

Section 375.420 excludes consequential or collateral damages that do not arise under the insurance policy.

Bassett v. Federal Kemper Insurance Co. · filed 1978-05-01

The statutory provision necessarily excludes other consequential or collateral damages which do not arise under the policy.

Section 375.420 allows a claim for vexatious delay when payment of life insurance proceeds leaves a loss of use, even if the insurer later pays the policy’s face amount.

Victor v. Manhattan Life Insurance Co. · filed 1989-05-09

We conclude that if the failure to promptly pay under the insurance contract was vexatious because Manhattan Life failed to promptly process and pay to the known beneficiaries, then the “loss of use” of the agreed proceeds until payment, eighteen months later, constitutes a “loss under a policy of life insurance.”

Section 375.420 permits, but does not require, the trier of fact to award vexatious damages.

Rice v. Farmers & Merchants Insurance Co. · filed 1990-11-01

Section 375.420 is permissive, not mandatory, and gives discretion to the trier of fact.

Section 375.420 is strictly construed, and an award for vexatious refusal to pay is discretionary with the trial court.

Parker v. National Foundation Life Insurance Co. · filed 1991-01-08

Further, this court keeps in mind that § 375.420, RSMo 1986 is to be strictly construed and as such, strict construction requires that the award be considered discretionary with the trial court.

Section 375.420 allows a vexatious refusal claim to go to the jury when evidence shows that an insurer’s bad faith efforts hindered a legitimate insurance claim.

Morris v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. · filed 1995-01-17

Where there is evidence that an insurer’s bad faith efforts have hindered a legitimate insurance claim, the action for vexatious refusal should be submitted to the jury. In this case, however, we find that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for defendant on the claim of vexatious refusal.

Section 375.420 permits a vexatious refusal claim to go to the jury when evidence shows the insurer refused to pay willfully and without reasonable cause at the time payment was requested.

Pace Properties, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1996-02-06

To support submission of the vexatious refusal instruction, an insured must provide evidence the insurer’s refusal to pay the loss — at the time it was asked to pay — was willful and without reasonable cause, as the facts would appear to a reasonable and prudent person. ... Thus, the trial court did not err in submitting the vexatious refusal to pay instruction to the jury.

Section 375.420 does not require a jury instruction defining “reasonable cause or excuse.”

Kostelec v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 1995-09-05

Moreover, no error resulted from the district court’s failure to define the phrase “reasonable cause or excuse,” as Missouri law does not require any such definitional instruction in the context of a claim under § 375.420.

Section 375.420 permits an award of damages or attorney’s fees after the insurer pays the policy limits if a claim for interest remains.

Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2006-04-11

Dhyne’s petition sought not only damages for State Farm’s refusal to pay, but also attorney’s fees incurred in attempting to collect under her policy and interest that had accrued as a result of State Farm’s delay. A claim of interest is sufficient to support an award of damages or attorney’s fees under section 375.420.

An insurer’s later payment does not end a vexatious refusal claim if the insured may still recover interest and punitive damages.

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC v. United States Fire Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-14

Even if U.S. Fire had paid all actual damages claimed by Plaintiff under Count I, Plaintiff can maintain its vexatious refusal claim for interest and punitive damages.

Section 375.420 does not allow recovery for personal injuries that do not arise under the insurance policy.

Wood v. Foremost Insurance · filed 2006-12-28

By this rule, the Woods may not recover for their personal injuries – which are damages not arising under the policy.

Section 375.420 permits a jury to award damages and attorney's fees when an insurer delays paying a claim without reasonable cause or excuse, even if it eventually pays the claim.

Wood v. Foremost Insurance · filed 2007-02-27

This argument ignores that the Woods also seek damages under the Vexatious Refusal to Pay Claim statute, sections 375.296 and 375.420 RSMo. If an insurance company refuses to pay a claim "without reasonable cause or excuse," then a jury may award "damages not to exceed twenty percent of the first fifteen hundred dollars of the loss, and ten percent of the amount of the loss in excess of fifteen hundred dollars . . . ." Section 375.420 RSMo. The statute also allows interest and attorney's fees. Id. Viewing the facts most favorably to the Woods, a reasonable jury could find Foremost liable under the Vexatious Refusal statute.

Section 375.420 permits penalties and attorney’s fees when an insurer refuses to pay a loss without reasonable cause or excuse; a litigable issue does not bar a penalty if the insurer acts vexatiously.

Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. v. Epstein · filed 2007-12-04

Section 375.420 R.S.Mo. allows for penalties and attorney’s fees if it appears from the evidence that the insurance company has refused to pay for their insured’s loss without reasonable cause or excuse. ... The existence of a litigable issue, however, does not preclude a vexatious penalty where there is evidence the insurer’s attitude was vexatious and recalcitrant. ... We view Columbia’s actions as evidence of a recalcitrant and vexatious attitude. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s award on this point.

An instruction requiring a coverage finding before § 375.420 damages may be awarded was not clear error when the contrary authority was dicta.

Cedar Hill Hardware & Construction Supply, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of Hannover · filed 2009-04-17

It would seem, then, that the governing statute itself presumes an underlying finding of coverage. Given that the support for Cedar Hill’s position is found only in dicta, we cannot say the use of Instruction 18 amounted to an error that was “clear.”

Section 375.420 does not allow recovery for vexatious refusal to pay when the policy does not cover the claimed loss.

Browning v. Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2011-06-07

Because this Court concludes that the Policy did not provide for UIM coverage as a matter of law, it must follow that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any monetary judgment from GuideOne based on a theory that GuideOne refused to pay the loss without reasonable cause or excuse pursuant to Section 375.420. Therefore, the entire award in favor of Plaintiffs and against GuideOne for statutory penalties, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees must be vacated.

Section 375.420 requires a vexatious refusal claimant to plead an insurance policy, the insurer’s refusal to pay, and a lack of reasonable cause or excuse.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Defendant/Respondent, and Title Pro, LLC · filed 2016-10-04

With regard to Count I (vexatious refusal), Appellant pleaded that it had “an insurance policy with Respondent,” that “Respondent denied coverage of [Appellant’s] claim . . . and has continued to deny coverage,” and that Respondent “had no reasonable cause or excuse to deny [Appellant’s] claim for coverage.” ... Therefore, on its face, Appellant’s petition alleges the required elements of both vexatious refusal and breach of contract.

Section 375.420 requires a vexatious refusal claim to plead an underlying policy breach or sufficient facts establishing the insurance contract.

Diamond Shoppe Jewelers LLC v. Federated Mutual Insurance CO. · filed 2019-09-16

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be grated and dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim for vexatious refusal to pay. In addition to stating mere legal conclusions, Plaintiffs have not asserted a separate underlying claim for breach of the insurance policy or pleaded sufficient facts to establish such a contract as they have failed to allege any facts relating to the terms of the insurance policy or its performance.

Section 375.420 preserves an insured’s potential rights to a vexatious refusal remedy when the policy divides appraisal costs equally.

Olga Despotis Trust v. Cincinnati Insurance Company · filed 2017-08-16

Nor did the appraisal provision, which divided the cost of appraisal equally, abridge the insured’s potential rights under Missouri’s vexatious refusal statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420.

Section 375.420 does not treat excess premium payments as a loss under an insurance policy.

Wireco Worldgroup, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. · filed 2018-07-31

We agree with the district court, however, that a “loss” under § 375.420 does not include excess premium payments.

Section 375.420 requires a breach of insurance contract claim to support a claim for vexatious refusal to pay.

Verto Medical Solutions, LLC v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2019-11-04

A party must also plead a claim for breach of contract to establish a claim for vexatious refusal to pay.

A § 375.420 claim may proceed after a companion § 375.296 claim is dismissed when the insurer has not supported dismissal of the § 375.420 claim.

St. Charles Glass & Glazing, Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-21

St. Charles Glass & Glazing, Inc. may proceed on the claim raised in Count III of its First Amended Complaint for vexatious refusal to pay under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420.

Section 375.420 permits a monetary penalty and attorneys’ fees for an insurer’s refusal to pay without reasonable cause, but does not support punitive damages on the same alleged refusal.

Harris v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-14

Based on the foregoing discussion, and as currently pled, the Court finds that the relief available to Plaintiff is limited to that for breach of contract and under Missouri’s vexatious refusal statute. Consequently, the Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

Section 375.420 permits a penalty of up to 20% of the first $1,500 of the loss and 10% of the remainder, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.

Pickett v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company · filed 2021-10-01

Under Missouri’s vexatious-refusal-to-pay statute, a plaintiff may be awarded damages “not to exceed . . . twenty percent of the first fifteen hundred dollars of the loss, and ten percent of the amount of the loss in excess of fifteen hundred dollars, and a reasonable attorney’s fee[.]” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420. Accordingly, the damages available to Pickett equals $5,190 ((20% x $1,500) + (10% x ($50,400 - $1,500)).

Section 375.420 provides no recovery for vexatious refusal to pay when the insurance policy never became effective and there was no breach.

Principal National Life Insurance Company v. Rothenberg · filed 2022-01-04

Because the insurance policy at issue here never became effective, Rothenberg cannot prove the first element of the claim for vexatious refusal and there was no breach.

Section 375.420 requires an insurer to owe payment under the policy before its refusal to pay can be vexatious.

Domino Two, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. · filed 2022-07-19

“However, where an insurer [has] no duty to pay under the insurance policy, there cannot be a claim for vexatious refusal to pay.” ... Because it has not yet been adjudicated whether Defendant breached the Policy, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Section 375.420 does not permit a stand-alone vexatious refusal claim; the insured must bring a breach of contract claim.

Mount Vernon Specialty Insurance Company v. Chippewa Loft LLC · filed 2024-03-29

The Court agrees. Under Missouri law, because Chippewa Loft has not brought a breach of contract claim against Mount Vernon, it cannot bring a vexatious refusal claim.

Section 375.420 provides supplemental damages for vexatious refusal to pay an insurance loss, rather than an independent cause of action.

EnviroAnalytics Group LLC v. AXIS Surplus Insurance Company · filed 2025-05-22

It is not an offensive right of action—or a right of action at all—that Maryland courts might legitimately decline to entertain.

A verdict for breach of an insurance contract alone does not establish vexatious refusal to pay; the claims have different elements.

Kar · filed 2026-05-15

The two claims have different elements, and “where there is an open question of law or fact relating to a claim under an insurance policy, the insurer may insist upon a judicial determination of those questions without being penalized for vexatious refusal to pay.” Cockerham v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 561 S.W.3d 862, 868 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in Count II merely because they obtained a favorable verdict as to Count I.

Section 375.420 permits a beneficiary to plead and attempt to prove damages for vexatious refusal to pay when Missouri law governs the insurance policy.

Moss v. National Life and Accident Insurance Co. · filed 1974-11-27

In reaching its conclusions, the Court merely finds that Section 376.620 RSMo. is the law applicable in determining the defenses which can be raised by defendant in this proceeding, and that plaintiff may plead and attempt to prove damages for vexatious refusal to pay under Section 375.420 RSMo. The Court does not find that damages for vexatious refusal to pay would be proper in this case, but specifically reserves that question for trial.

Section 375.420 provides a remedy for vexatious refusal to pay that a policy’s choice-of-law provision does not preclude when Missouri has a local interest in protecting the insured.

Maritz Holdings, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policies Numbered B122FI0115 and FI011511 · filed 2020-11-30

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the choice-of-law provisions in the Insurance Contracts do not preclude Maritz’s statutorily prescribed remedy for allegedly vexatious conduct by Underwriters.

Section 375.420 applies to title insurance as indemnity insurance and permits damages and attorney’s fees for vexatious refusal to pay.

Fohn v. Title Insurance Corp. of St. Louis · filed 1975-10-13

“Indemnity” insurance is one listed in the statute and the provisions therein are applicable to a title insurance policy.

Section 375.420 does not impose vexatious refusal damages or attorney’s fees on the Missouri Insurance Guaranty Association for its own claims handling.

Pannell v. Missouri Insurance Guaranty Ass'n · filed 1980-02-04

Even if the statutorily mandated duties and obligations of the association could be said to bear some semblance to “transacting or doing the business of insurance”, it is crystal clear that the statute (Section 375.-785, RSMo 1978) which sired the association by the same token insulated it from the application of Section 375.420 (damages and attorney’s fees for “vexatious” refusal to pay), supra, insofar as its own conduct was concerned.

Section 375.420 permits penalties for an insurer’s unreasonable refusal to pay an uninsured motorist claim even without a prior adjudication against the uninsured motorist.

Shafer v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange · filed 1989-08-04

We hold that an insured under a policy containing an uninsured motorist clause who brings an action against the insurer to enforce his claim, and who establishes by evidence that the insurer has refused to pay such loss without reasonable cause or excuse, is entitled to the penalties provided for under § 375.420. The right to seek the penalties exists even though the insured never obtains an adjudication against the uninsured motorist.

Section 375.420 does not permit vexatious-refusal penalties when the claimant had no coverage at the time of the loss.

Bickerton, Inc. v. American States Insurance Co. · filed 1995-03-07

Bickerton’s assertion for vexatious refusal to pay is without merit. In Missouri Section 375.420, RSMo.1994, provides for the imposition of vexatious refusal to pay penalties: ... Since Bickerton was not covered on the date of the loss, and since testimony at trial indicated that American States denied the claim on the Building because “the investigation did not reveal the Museum to be responsible in causing the claim to the Building,” American States cannot be said to have acted vexatiously in denying the claim.

Section 375.420 allows a vexatious refusal to pay claim against an insurance company, but the Missouri Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association is not an insurance company under the section.

Missouri Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Pott Industries · filed 1998-06-16

Section 375.420, RSMo 1986, establishes a vexatious refusal to pay claim against “any insurance company” that unreasonably refuses to pay a claim. Though MIGA assumes certain “rights, duties, and obligations” of an insolvent insurer, it is a “nonprofit unincorporated legal entity,” not an insurance company.

Section 375.420 excludes claims under automobile liability insurance policies from its vexatious refusal to pay remedy.

Samuels v. American Family Insurance Co. · filed 2005-04-12

In authorizing a vexatious refusal to pay claim, the General Assembly made an exception for claims made under “automobile liability insurance” policies: ... Samuels’ statutory claim for vexatious refusal to pay, therefore, was not authorized, and the circuit court should have dismissed her claim.

Section 375.420 applies only to insurance companies, so a credit union cannot be liable for vexatious refusal to pay under it.

Grobe v. Vantage Credit Union · filed 2010-01-20

Section 375.420 only applies to insurance companies. ... Vantage is a credit union, not an insurance company, and cannot be liable under section 375.420.

Section 375.420 permits additional damages and attorney fees for an insurer’s vexatious refusal to pay, but a claim based on underinsured motorist coverage is premature when the policy’s exhaustion condition has not been met.

Chill v. Farmers Insurance Company · filed 2021-02-18

The second cause of action, for “vexatious refusal to pay,” is a tort created by Missouri statute, which permits plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees and additional damages against an insurance company in excess of the amount of a loss, if the insurance company “refused to pay such loss without reasonable cause or excuse.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420. ... Based on these cases and the indistinguishable language of the Policy’s UIM coverage provision, the plaintiffs’ claims against Farmers—both for breach of the Policy and for bad faith breach of the Policy—are premature and subject to dismissal on that basis.

Section 375.420 provides a statutory remedy for an insurer’s unreasonable refusal to pay a first party claim and precludes extending the tort of bad faith to such claims.

Duncan v. Andrew County Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1983-12-13

It is a clear expression of public policy on the subject vitiating any need for extending the tort of bad faith to first party claims. To hold otherwise, would, for all practical purposes, constitute a repeal of § 375.420, supra, by judicial fiat due to the broader vista of damages envisioned under the tort of bad faith.

Section 375.420 applies to actions based on an insurance policy and does not limit recovery for a third-party bad-faith refusal-to-settle claim.

Ganaway v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1990-07-30

Also without merit is Shelter’s strained and tenuous argument that plaintiff’s recovery was limited by § 375.420, RSMo 1986, the “vexatious delay” statute.

Section 375.420 provides a remedy for an insurer’s unreasonable refusal to pay and preempts independent tort claims arising from the refusal or the related claim investigation.

Halford v. American Preferred Ins. · filed 1985-09-17

If, as plaintiff claims, the insurance companies failed to conduct a good faith investigation designed to ascertain the merits of plaintiff’s insurance claim, then plaintiff had a cause of action under § 375.420 and no independent tort action lies.

Section 375.420 preempts common law claims against insurers for alleged bad faith handling of first-party insurance claims, regardless of how the claim is labeled.

Baker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 1988-05-10

It noted that § 375.420 pre-empts common law actions against insurers for alleged bad faith handling of first-party claims, whether the action is denominated a tortious interference claim, a prima facie tort claim, or otherwise. ... We have examined the record and the briefs and find no errors of either fact or law. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing appellant’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 375.420 provides a remedy for an insurer's refusal to pay a loss without reasonable cause or excuse; an insured cannot use a prima facie tort claim to bypass the statutory exemption for farmers' mutual insurers.

Catron v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1987-01-13

The court noted the vexatious refusal statute which provides a statutory remedy when insurers refuse to pay an insured's loss without reasonable cause or excuse. § 375.420 RSMo 1978. ... If the Catrons were allowed to bring a prima facie tort action it would circumvent the will of the legislature in enacting the vexatious delay and the exemption statutes.

Section 375.420 applies only to actions against insurance companies and does not preempt tort claims against an individual defendant.

Newman v. Progressive Casualty Insurance · filed 2020-05-13

Even if § 375.420 does preempt tort claims, it applies only to insurance companies; thus, it does not preempt tort claims against an individual defendant.

Section 375.420 does not allow an insured to recast a refusal to pay benefits as a tort claim based on the same conduct; a claim based on independent tortious conduct may proceed.

Meyer v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company · filed 2021-08-10

As no independent tortious conduct is alleged, Plaintiff is merely attempting to recast his contract and vexatious refusal claims as tort claims. Missouri law does not permit him to do so.

Section 375.420’s vexatious-refusal remedy is preempted by ERISA when asserted against a self-insured employee benefit plan.

Hoeflicker v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund · filed 1986-09-16

In this case, defendant is a self-insured welfare benefit fund, at least as to the accidental death benefits. Therefore, this Court concludes that plaintiff’s claim for vexatious refusal to pay under §§ 375.296 and 375.420, and the application of § 376.-620, which makes the suicide defense in insurance contracts null and void, are preempted by ERISA’s pre-emption provision.

Section 375.420’s vexatious refusal to pay remedy is preempted by ERISA when the claim relates to an employee benefit plan.

In Re Life Insurance Company of North America · filed 1988-09-22

The district court clearly erred in ruling that Missouri’s vexatious refusal statute was not preempted by ERISA and in denying LINA’s motion for summary judgment for that reason.

Claims under § 375.420 for vexatious refusal to pay benefits under an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan are preempted by ERISA.

Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co. · filed 1989-11-03

Although there is in ERISA an exemption from the general rule of preemption for laws which regulate insurance, found in 29 U.S.C. § 1143, the Eighth Circuit has applied the Supreme Court's Pilot Life rationale to hold that claims under Missouri's vexatious refusal to pay statute are preempted by ERISA. In re Life Insurance Company of North America, 857 F.2d 1190, 1194-95 (8th Cir.1988). With these clear and binding precedents before it, this Court must dismiss plaintiff's claims as preempted by ERISA.

Section 375.420’s vexatious refusal to pay claim is preempted by ERISA and is not saved as a law regulating insurance.

Coonce v. Aetna Life Insurance · filed 1991-11-06

the Eighth Circuit has determined that Missouri’s vexatious refusal to pay statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.420, is not saved from preemption under § 1144(b)(2)(A) as being a law “which regulates insurance.” ... The court of appeals’ decision in ... is dispositive of this matter. Therefore, summary judgment shall be entered for defendants on Count III as a matter of law.

A claim for vexatious refusal to pay benefits under § 375.420 is preempted when the insurance plan is governed by ERISA.

Coots v. United Employers Federation · filed 1994-10-04

Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint alleging a state law claim for vexatious refusal to pay medical benefits under § 375.420 R.S.Mo. and a claim under ERISA. ... Plaintiff's insistence on alleging a state law claim for vexatious refusal to pay medical benefits in her second amended complaint does not alter this jurisdictional fact; and such claim is stricken from her complaint.

A vexatious refusal to pay claim under § 375.420 makes the insurer’s underwriting file relevant to discovery.

Domino Two, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. · filed 2022-02-28

Because Plaintiff’s complaint includes a bad faith claim—that is, vexatious refusal to pay in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420—the Court concludes the underwriting file is relevant.