Richey v. State Farm: Missouri Court Reverses Uninsured Motorist Verdict

Billy Richey filed a lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company after sustaining severe injuries in a motorcycle accident in April 2008. He sought uninsured motorist benefits under his insurance policy, alleging he had been forced off the road by a vehicle that left the scene. The insurer denied the claim, and Richey brought the matter to trial.

Richey testified that while riding his motorcycle on a rural Missouri highway, he encountered a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction that swerved into his lane. To avoid a head-on collision, he veered off the road and crashed into a ditch. Law enforcement and emergency services responded, and Richey was transported to a hospital where he remained in a coma for nearly three weeks. He later pleaded guilty to a charge of careless and imprudent driving, though he testified that he did so to avoid legal costs.

Richey asserted that he informed his local insurance agent and other State Farm representatives that another vehicle caused the crash. He stated these conversations occurred soon after the incident. His children, Tracy and Mark, were also prepared to testify that Richey had described the phantom vehicle shortly after the accident.

Trial court proceedings and evidentiary disputes

State Farm maintained that no phantom vehicle existed and suggested that Richey invented the account after consulting an attorney. The insurer's defense relied in part on testimony from Corporal Todd Hadlock, who reviewed the crash scene but did not conduct a formal accident reconstruction. Hadlock testified that skid marks suggested Richey gradually left the roadway without swerving, and he found no evidence of another vehicle's involvement. Based on his observations, Hadlock concluded the accident resulted from Richey's inattentiveness.

Richey's counsel attempted to introduce testimony from Tracy and Mark to support Richey's early and consistent account of being forced off the road. The trial court allowed them to testify generally but excluded their statements about what Richey had said regarding the phantom vehicle. The court determined that these statements were not relevant at that point in the trial. Richey's attorney later made an offer of proof outside the jury's presence, during which both children testified they heard Richey describe the phantom vehicle to others, including State Farm agents, between March and June 2008.

During the trial, State Farm's counsel repeatedly asserted that the story about the phantom vehicle was fabricated and only emerged after Richey retained legal representation. This accusation was made during opening statements and reinforced during cross-examination. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of State Farm, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.

Appeal and review of evidentiary rulings

Richey appealed, challenging two rulings by the trial court: the exclusion of his children’s testimony about his prior statements and the admission of Corporal Hadlock’s opinion on the cause of the accident.

On the first issue, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in excluding Tracy and Mark’s testimony. It found that once State Farm charged Richey with fabricating his story after speaking with his attorney, his prior consistent statements became admissible to rehabilitate his credibility. The court noted that the exclusion of this evidence materially affected the trial because the jury lacked the opportunity to hear confirmation of Richey’s version from other witnesses who heard it before litigation began.

On the second issue, the court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Hadlock to testify that Richey’s inattentive driving caused the crash. Under Missouri law, police officers who did not witness a traffic accident are generally not permitted to give opinion testimony on fault. The appellate court concluded that Hadlock's testimony crossed the line into improper opinion and was likely to influence the jury disproportionately due to his law enforcement background.

Court’s decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. It found that both evidentiary errors—excluding the prior consistent statements and admitting improper expert testimony—had a material impact on the outcome.

Help with motor vehicle accident insurance disputes

If you’ve been injured in a crash and are facing issues with an insurance claim, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles cases involving uninsured motorist coverage, disputed liability, and post-accident claims. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your case.