Although it involves a different underlying vehicle owner/borrower, this appeal involves the same issues, and the same parties, as Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520 (Mo.App.2009), also decided today. Arch’s opening Brief suffers from the same defects described in that decision. For the reasons stated in our opinion in No. WD69805, the appeal is dismissed. Progressive’s motion to strike Arch’s reply brief, or in the alternative for leave to file a sur-reply brief, is denied as moot.
NEWTON, C.J., concurs.
LOWENSTEIN, SR. J., dissents in separate opinion.