10 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shahan v. Shahangreen1 sentence2011See Shahan, 988 S.W.2d at 533 . | 1 | 1 |
Schaefer v. the Home Ins. Co.green2 sentences1977Co., 239 Mo.App. 586, 592 , 194 S.W.2d 718, 722 [1, 2] (1946). 1977Co., 239 Mo.App. 586, 592 , 194 S.W.2d 718, 722 [1, 2] (1946). | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. Beckergreen2 sentences1977Likewise, in Perkins v. Becker, 236 Mo.App. 786, 792 , 157 S.W.2d 550, 553 (1942), where insured’s judgment creditor tried to escape an exclusion for underage drivers by arguing the loss was caused by bad brakes, the court stated: “A fair and reasonable construction of ⅛§ language (in the . . exclusion clause is that the policy is suspended during the time the automobile is being operated by a person under the age allowed by our statute, and the policy being suspended during such time, there would be no liability under the coverage clause ..” To like effect is Schaefer v. Home Ins. 1977Likewise, in Perkins v. Becker, 236 Mo.App. 786, 792 , 157 S.W.2d 550, 553 (1942), where insured’s judgment creditor tried to escape an exclusion for underage drivers by arguing the loss was caused by bad brakes, the court stated: “A fair and reasonable construction of ⅛§ language (in the . . exclusion clause is that the policy is suspended during the time the automobile is being operated by a person under the age allowed by our statute, and the policy being suspended during such time, there would be no liability under the coverage clause ..” To like effect is Schaefer v. Home Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Farber v. American Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence1930Co., 191 Mo. App. 307, 320, 323 .] In relation to the second count of the petition it is claimed that plaintiff is not entitled to recover because the standard which was being erected at the time deceased fell over the wire "was a new structure and the work cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classed as ‘such repairs and ordinary alterations as are necessary to the care of said premises and their maintenance in good condition,’ which is the language of the coverage clause.” However, the coverage clause is broader than this. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Olson v. Hertz Corporation
green
2 sentences1974Olson v. Hertz Corporation, 270 Minn. 233 , 133 N.W.2d 519, 523 . 1972Olson v. Hertz Corporation, 270 Minn. 223 , 133 N.W.2d 519, 523 . | 2 | 1972–1974 |
Brooner & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.
green
1 sentence2014See id.; Butters, 513 S.W.2d at 424-25 ; Brooner, 760 S.W.2d at 447 ; 3 New Appleman, supra; 22 Holmes, supra. Here, both letters only vaguely informed the insured that Mid-Continent would investigate and perform a coverage analysis and that it was reserving its right to assert that there may be no duty to defend or indemnify against the claims. 7 The letters generally discussed the nature of the underlying lawsuit and set forth various provisions of Advantage’s general liability policy. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Butters v. City of Independence
green
1 sentence2014See id.; Butters, 513 S.W.2d at 424-25 ; Brooner, 760 S.W.2d at 447 ; 3 New Appleman, supra; 22 Holmes, supra. Here, both letters only vaguely informed the insured that Mid-Continent would investigate and perform a coverage analysis and that it was reserving its right to assert that there may be no duty to defend or indemnify against the claims. 7 The letters generally discussed the nature of the underlying lawsuit and set forth various provisions of Advantage’s general liability policy. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kinnaman-Carson v. Westport Insurance Corp.
green
2 sentences2011There, our supreme court held an insurer’s agreement “to defend the lawsuit against [insured] without a reservation of rights precludefd] it from later asserting a coverage defense against the [injured plaintiff] in their separate garnishment action.” 283 S.W.3d at 766 . 2011In that case, the insurer’s counsel advised the insured towing company “that [insurer] had dropped its reservation of rights and agreed to defend the suit without reservation.” Id. at 763 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hendrickson v. Zurich American Insurance Co. of Illinois
green
1 sentence2007The Court described the trial court’s finding as follows: "[The insurer] had a duty to defend the [insured] in the tort action and its failure to do so amounted to a waiver of the coverage defense in the garnishment action under the doctrine of estoppel in pais.” Id. at 682 . . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hatcher v. Hatcher
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Moore
green
1 sentence1997Shell further argues an inherent ambiguity in the coverage clause exists and could be clarified by adding “whether on the sole behalf of any one insured covered by the policy or on behalf of any one claim covered under the policy” in the coverage clause after the word “exhausted” and before the phrase “by judgments or settlements.” Shell turns to Moore, 912 S.W.2d at 534 and American Family Mut. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State ex rel. Schmohl v. Ellison
neutral
1 sentence1937Co. (Mo. App.), 189 S. W. 597 , affirmed (Mo. Sup.), 197 S. W. 60 ; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 266 Mo. 580 .] In Stewart v. North American Acc. Ins. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.