Court Opinion

ID: 9656972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:09:41.87512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:39.328030
License: Public Domain

CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
Although the principal opinion does not discuss in detail the cases of Camden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 66 S.W.3d 78 (Mo.App. E.D., 2001) and Spellman v. Sentry Insurance, 66 S.W.3d 74 (Mo.App. E.D., 2001) decided by Division II of this district, it is entirely in line with these cases. They establish precedent in this district that a collision insurer may avoid providing full compensation (less any deductible, of course) for collision damage by exercising a policy option to repair the damage. Inasmuch as I am not a regular judge of this court, I believe that I should defer to the principle of stare decisis by following these holdings. I therefore concur in the judgment of affir-mance.
As the principal opinion recognizes, however, there is a clear split of authority on this issue. The cases cited in footnote two seem to enunciate the proposition that “re*24pair” is not complete unless value is restored. The Camden opinion declined to consider opinions from other states because of its conclusion that the language of the policy was clear. Our courts, of course, are not bound in any sense by decisions from other states, but I believe that there is merit in uniformity among our several jurisdictions, especially in commercial matters. For this reason I hope that our Supreme Court will undertake consideration of the problem disclosed by this case and the other cases from this district discussed above, with consideration of other authorities.
With these observations, I concur in the judgment of affirmance.