Opinion ID: 1784542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inconsistent Findings

Text: The insurer perceives some inconsistency in allowing a recovery on a negligence theory under Count I and on an intent to defraud theory which is the basis of Count II. It is also suggested that there is an inconsistency in treating the Corvette as a salvage vehicle for purposes of the salvage title statutes and as an over-the-road vehicle when the odometer violations are considered. There is no inconsistency. By reason of the salvage title violations, Wells and Allen were able to market a flood-damaged vehicle as an ordinary vehicle in commerce. Because of the odometer rollback, they were able to hold out to the purchaser that the vehicle had far less use than was actually the case. The evidence segregated the damages from the two types of violations. There is no reason why recovery for both cannot be had. Gollwitzer v. Theodoro, 675 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1984), goes no further than holding that a plaintiff who submits only a theory of common law fraud may not recover attorneys' fees authorized by a particular statute which was mentioned in the plaintiff's petition, but not submitted to the jury.