13 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1907–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
DeWitt v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences2007Co., 621 S.W.2d 948, 954 (Mo.App.1981); (3) the inadequacy of the insurer’s investigation of the claim, DeWitt, 667 S.W.2d at 710 ; (4) the explanation given by the insurer for denying the claim, id.; and (5) the insurer’s disparate treatment of coin-sureds, Russell v. Farmers & Merchants Ins. 2004See DeWitt, 667 S.W.2d at 710 (adequacy of an insurer’s investigation of a claim may be considered evidence of vexa-tiousness). | 1 | 3 |
R.M.A. (a Minor Child), by his Next Friend: Rachelle Appleberry v. Blue Springs R-IV School District and Blue Springs School District Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2024Dist., 568 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Mo. banc 2019)). 2 shall have the right to participate, at [IPI’s] expense, in the investigation and defense of any such claim. | 1 | 1 |
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2020Similarly, in Aerojet-General Corporation v. Transport Indemnity Co., the California Supreme Court held that an “insured’s site investigation expenses constitute defense costs that the insurer must incur in fulfilling its duty to defend if, and only if . . . the site investigation [is] conducted within the temporal limits of the insurer’s duty to defend, i.e., between tender of the defense and conclusion of the action” and “the site investigation [is] a reasonable and necessary effort to avoid or at least minimize liability.” 948 P.2d 909, 922 (Cal. 1997) (emphasis added). 15 “By contrast, if 2020Similarly, in Aerojet-General Corporation v. Transport Indemnity Co., the California Supreme Court held that an “insured’s site investigation expenses constitute defense costs that the insurer must incur in fulfilling its duty to defend if, and only if . . . the site investigation [is] conducted within the temporal limits of the insurer’s duty to defend, i.e., between tender of the defense and conclusion of the action” and “the site investigation [is] a reasonable and necessary effort to avoid or at least minimize liability.” 948 P.2d 909, 922 (Cal. 1997) (emphasis added). 15 “By contrast, if | 1 | 1 |
Teck Metals, Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd'sgreen1 sentence2020Such investigative costs did not represent “costs incurred in defense of a claim,” but rather “costs to be paid as settlement of a claim.” Id. (“At that stage, it is no longer the investigation of a claim, but the settlement of a claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Farmers & Merchants Insurance Co.green1 sentence2007Co., 834 S.W.2d 209, 222 (Mo.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Federal Kemper Insurance Co.green2 sentences2007Co., 621 S.W.2d 948, 954 (Mo.App.1981); (3) the inadequacy of the insurer’s investigation of the claim, DeWitt, 667 S.W.2d at 710 ; (4) the explanation given by the insurer for denying the claim, id.; and (5) the insurer’s disparate treatment of coin-sureds, Russell v. Farmers & Merchants Ins. 2007Allen, 753 S.W.2d at 620 ; Berry, 621 S.W.2d at 954 . (c) Inadequacies in the investigation of the claim Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and disregarding all contrary evidence, there was substantial evidence that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Shelter’s investigation of the claim was inadequate. | 1 | 1 |
Bickerton, Inc. v. American States Insurance Co.green1 sentence1996Bickerton, Inc. v. American States Insurance Co., 898 S.W.2d 595, 602 (Mo.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Missouri v. Sheena Marr
green
1 sentence2020On appeal, the defendant in Marr argued that once the officer determined that the defendant and driver were not in need of assistance, his “initial investigation in response to the stranded motorist dispatch was completed and every action taken thereafter constituted an impermissible extension of the original investigation in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 373 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kinnaman-Carson v. Westport Insurance Corp.
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tisius v. State
green
1 sentence2017Tisius , 519 S.W.3d at 425 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Renaissance Leasing, LLC v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence2013At oral argument, ABC asserted that its investigation does not preclude reliance because it was only a partial investigation. “[TJhere are three exceptions to the investigation rule,” and one of those is if "the investigating party makes only a partial investigation and relies on both the results of the inspection and the misrepresentation-” Renaissance Leasing, 322 S.W.3d at 132 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
JAM Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Allen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2007Allen, 753 S.W.2d at 620 ; Berry, 621 S.W.2d at 954 . (c) Inadequacies in the investigation of the claim Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and disregarding all contrary evidence, there was substantial evidence that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Shelter’s investigation of the claim was inadequate. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Harbour v. State
neutral
1 sentence1989Harbour v. State, 660 S.W.2nd 12 (Mo.App.1983).” Nowhere in the pro se motion or the amended motion do we find any allegation as to what would have been revealed by an investigation by defense counsel regarding the “veracity” of Bland’s statement implicating appellant. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Allen v. St. Louis Transit Co.
neutral
1 sentence1907This instruction was as follows: ‘ ‘ The jury are instructed that it was the duty of the plaintiff, in going upon the western or inner foot board of the car upon which he entered, to exercise such degree of care as the position he was in rendered reasonably necessary to prevent his being struck by passengers on the car or by the car passing on the other track; and if the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff, while upon such running or foot board, could, by standing upright thereon, and not leaning outwardly towards the cars on the other track, have avoided being struck by a passen | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.