ST. LOUIS — The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to deny Root Insurance Company's motion to set aside a default judgment award.
The judgment stemmed from a lawsuit Brian Wetzel filed against Root for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay, following Root's denial of his vehicle insurance claim after an accident in March 2022, according to the Nov. 5 opinion.
Wetzel, who had a policy with Root, lost control of his vehicle due to wet road conditions, resulting in a total loss, the opinion stated.
Despite submitting a claim shortly after the incident, Root denied coverage, leading Wetzel to file suit.
The Ray County Circuit Court issued a default judgment in Wetzel’s favor in January 2023 after Root failed to respond to the lawsuit.
The court awarded Wetzel $42,150 in damages, including compensation for his vehicle, costs for alternative transportation, statutory damages for vexatious refusal to pay, and attorney’s fees, the opinion states.
Root sought to overturn the judgment, arguing that its failure to respond was due to a breakdown in communication involving its registered agent, CT Corporation.
Root asserted that although the Missouri Department of Insurance properly served CT Corporation, it did not relay the documents to Root until after the default judgment was entered.
The insurer maintained that this lapse constituted "good cause" for setting aside the judgment and further claimed it had a meritorious defense, citing a policy exclusion for commercial use of the vehicle.
The appeals court, however, sided with the circuit court’s finding that Root did not demonstrate sufficient "good cause" to vacate the judgment.
Root acknowledged that the service of the lawsuit through the Department of Insurance was valid and binding, making it responsible for any failures in its internal notification process, according to the suit.
The court noted that Root did not present concrete evidence or affidavits from CT Corporation to support its claims of a communication breakdown. Instead, Root relied on unsworn statements, which the court found inadequate to justify setting aside the default.
"We have a decidedly different set of circumstances in the case before us than those just discussed supra," the case stated. "Root told the circuit court that it informed the Department that if it received service of process for Root, it was to notify CT Corporation, and Root said it was under the belief that CT Corporation was its registered agent."
Root’s argument that the communication failure with its registered agent constituted a "mistake" fell short in the court's view.
The judges noted that a party seeking to vacate a default judgment must present verifiable evidence and not rely solely on legal arguments or unsupported assertions.
Given this lack of substantive evidence, the appeals court ruled that the lower court did not abuse its discretion.
"The circuit court’s Rule 74.05(d) judgment is affirmed," wrote Judge Janet Sutton.
Judges Lisa White Hardwick and Cynthia L. Martin joined in with Sutton.
The appellant was represented by Robert Buckley and Bradley Letterman of Jefferson City,
The respondent was represented by Farrell Hockemeier of Richmond; and John Reddoch II of Liberty.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comments.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD86869