Save. Plan. Retire.

Vantage Credit Union v Chisholm

Vantage Credit Union is a premier full-service financial institution, boasting more than $1 billion in assets and 72,000 member-owners located at 14 branches throughout St. Louis metropolitan area, 19 counties of eastern Missouri, Madison and St. Clair counties of Illinois as well as Madison and St. Clair counties in Illinois. They offer competitive interest rates on savings accounts and loans as well as various investment products to meet members’ financial needs.

Vantage offers its members a range of products and services designed to help them manage spending, build savings and save for the future. Credit card products from Vantage help members improve their credit histories; digital banking features like remote deposits and card controls make managing finances easy from any location at any time; while Smart Option Student Loans from Sallie Mae help members prepare for future needs.

On appeal, Jimmy Chisholm contends that the trial court erred by awarding summary judgment to Vantage Credit Union (“Vantage”) on its breach of contract claim as well as counterclaims alleging vexatious refusal to pay, fraud, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. For a breach of contract claim to succeed there must be no genuine dispute about any material facts underlying each element of its claim.

At Vantage Credit Union, it was represented to Appellant Chisholm that credit disability insurance would be provided or procured on his behalf when signing his initial credit agreement. Over time he made inquiries with both Vantage and its third-party insurer (Life Investors Insurance Company of America n/k/a Transamerica Life Insurance Company) to secure benefits under this policy.

Record evidence also reveals that Vantage and its representative made specific promises of good faith and fair dealing to Appellant during interactions between them regarding his application for credit disability coverage. Since there is no genuine dispute regarding these material facts, the Court can find there was no breach of contract by Vantage nor improper refusal of Appellant’s request for disability insurance; thus reversing its decision from trial court.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.