Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mississippi-Fox River Drainage District 2 of Clark County v. Plengegreen2 sentences2017The Court noted that “[classically, estoppel requires ‘(1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted and sued upon, (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to such other party, resulting from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement or act.’ ” Id. at 386 (quoting Mississippi-Fox Drainage Dist. v. Plenge, 735 S.W.2d 748, 754 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987)). 2002Because the general rule that an insurer, having denied liability on a specific ground, may not thereafter shift its denial to a different ground is rooted in the doctrines of waiver and estoppel, the court highlighted the distinction between the two and defined them as follows: Classically, estoppel requires “(1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted and sued upon, (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to such other party, resulting from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate the a | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.green2 sentences2017The Court noted that “[classically, estoppel requires ‘(1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted and sued upon, (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to such other party, resulting from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement or act.’ ” Id. at 386 (quoting Mississippi-Fox Drainage Dist. v. Plenge, 735 S.W.2d 748, 754 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987)). 1993Co., 776 S.W.2d 384, 386-89 (Mo. banc 1989), for an explanation of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel as applied to an insurer’s defense to its insured’s claim. | 1 | 4 |
Lucas v. Lucasyellow1 sentence2013See Lucas v. Lucas, 307 S.W.3d 712, 714 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (quoting Reynolds v. City of Valley Park, 254 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App.E.D.2008)) (“A cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any prac tical effect upon any then existing controversy.”). | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. City of Valley Parkgreen1 sentence2013See Lucas v. Lucas, 307 S.W.3d 712, 714 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) (quoting Reynolds v. City of Valley Park, 254 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App.E.D.2008)) (“A cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any prac tical effect upon any then existing controversy.”). | 1 | 1 |
Smetana v. Smetanagreen1 sentence2005Smetana v. Smetana, 963 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Shapiro v. Shapirogreen1 sentence2002Waiver is founded upon “the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” If waiver is “implied from conduct, the conduct must clearly and unequivocally show a purpose to relinquish the right.” Shapiro v. Shapiro, 701 S.W.2d 205, 206 (Mo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Blew v. Connergreen1 sentence2000A Missouri case stated the following: “[I]t has been held by the weight of authority that waiver or estoppel cannot create a contract of insurance or so apply as to bring within the coverage of the policy property, or a loss of risk, which by the terms of the policy is expressly excepted or otherwise excluded.* * * There are, however, broad expression in some of the cases to the effect that the company may waive a defense of lack of coverage, or may by its conduct become estopped to deny that the loss is within the terms of the contract.” Blew v. Conner, 310 S.W.2d 294, 303 (Mo.App.1958) citin | 1 | 1 |
McKenna v. McKennagreen1 sentence1999Finally, as to the trial court’s reliance on the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel to dismiss the appellant’s motion to modify, the law is well settled that they do not apply to child support orders where a substantial and continuing change of circumstances, rendering their terms unreasonable, is shown, requiring modification. § 452.370.1; McKenna v. McKenna, 928 S.W.2d 910, 913-14 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Shelter General Insurance Co. v. Sieglergreen1 sentence1998Shelter General Ins. v. Siegler, 945 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Mo.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lawrence v. New York Life Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2002W.D.1983), we stated that once an insured relies to his detriment preparing to meet a defense, the company "may not shift the grounds of defense after the fact.” However, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are unavailable “to create insurance where it would not otherwise exist” by bringing "within the coverage of an insurance policy risks not covered by its terms or expressly excluded therefrom.” Lawrence, 649 S.W.2d at 465 . 1 . 1989Id. | 2 | 1989–2002 |
State Ex Rel. York v. Daugherty
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wright v. Newman
green
1 sentence1996She relies on the following Missouri cases to support her proposition: Wright v. Neuman, 598 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.Mo.1984); Guenther v. Metropolitan Life Ins. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Palumbo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
green
2 sentences1965As has sometimes been said, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot be successfully invoked to create a primary liability, or a liability for a benefit not contracted for at all, * * *570 Again at said section, page 619 of said volume, we find the following: “The rule against extending the coverage of a policy by the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, considered supra subdivision a of this section, has been applied to health and accident insurance, and thus, under a policy insuring against disabilities arising after the date of the policy, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel have been held in 1965As has sometimes been said, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot be successfully invoked to create a primary liability, or a liability for a benefit not contracted for at all, * * *570 Again at said section, page 619 of said volume, we find the following: “The rule against extending the coverage of a policy by the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, considered supra subdivision a of this section, has been applied to health and accident insurance, and thus, under a policy insuring against disabilities arising after the date of the policy, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel have been held in | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Prudential Insurance v. Brookman
green
2 sentences1965As has sometimes been said, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot be successfully invoked to create a primary liability, or a liability for a benefit not contracted for at all, * * *570 Again at said section, page 619 of said volume, we find the following: “The rule against extending the coverage of a policy by the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, considered supra subdivision a of this section, has been applied to health and accident insurance, and thus, under a policy insuring against disabilities arising after the date of the policy, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel have been held in 1965As has sometimes been said, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot be successfully invoked to create a primary liability, or a liability for a benefit not contracted for at all, * * *570 Again at said section, page 619 of said volume, we find the following: “The rule against extending the coverage of a policy by the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, considered supra subdivision a of this section, has been applied to health and accident insurance, and thus, under a policy insuring against disabilities arising after the date of the policy, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel have been held in | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.