Inc., 365 Mo. 350, 359, 282 S.W.2d 564, 573 (1955) (en banc) (footnote and citation omitted) (stating that “[a]ny reported opinion should be read in the light of the facts of that particular case, and it would be unfair as well as improper ‘to give permanent and controlling effect to casual statements outside the scope of the real inquiry’ ” (quoting Rauch v. Metz, 212 S.W. 353, 357 (Mo.1919) (en banc)); Cook v. Pedigo, 714 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Mo.App.1986) (same); Saveway Oil Co. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 560 S.W.2d 325, 328 (Mo.App.1977) (same). The Missouri Court of Appeals made the same statement in dictum in Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Wrather, 652 S.W.2d 245, 249 (Mo.App.1983), a case factually similar to White. See also Crull v. Gleb, 382 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Mo.App.1964) (<HOLDING>). And, the Missouri Court of Appeals reiterated
holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts holding that a legal malpractice insurance policy that limited coverage to suits seeking damages and defined damages as excluding sanctions did not provide coverage for a sanctions motion against the insured holding that liability insurance policy that expressly excluded coverage for the insureds intentional acts did not cover punitive damages award assessed against the insured and stating in dictum that public policy forbids insurance coverage for punitive damages holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination