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.
6 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1965–1988 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1986State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 646 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Mo.App.1983). 1986State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 646 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Mo.App.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Blew v. Connergreen2 sentences1988The court went on to refer to an earlier court of appeals opinion in the same case, Blew v. Conner, 310 S.W.2d 294, 303-04 (Mo.App.1958), wherein it was stated: While waiver and estoppel may prevent an insurer from asserting a defense to coverage otherwise provided by an insurance policy our Missouri appellate courts so far as we have been able to ascertain have not yet permitted the use of either waiver or estoppel to establish coverage in the first instance where none existed before. ... [T]he rule is generally expressed that estoppel and waiver do not themselves give a cause of action, and 1965Blew v. Conner, Mo.App., 310 S.W.2d 294, 303 , Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 626 ; 16 Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice 629 ; 29A Am.Jur., Insurance, 289 ; 45 C.J.S. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weber v. Union Life Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1983The court said, “While waiver and estoppel may prevent an insurer from asserting a defense to coverage otherwise provided by an insurance policy our Missouri appellate courts so far as we have been able to ascertain have not yet permitted the use of either waiver or estoppel to establish coverage in the first instance where none existed before.” And at page 304, “Other Missouri cases and apparently well reasoned outstate authority indicate estoppel and waiver are not available to broaden the coverage to include that which is clearly not within the coverage of the policy or expressly excluded f | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1976White v. Great American Reserve Insurance Co., 342 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 421 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App.1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
White v. Great American Reserve Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1976White v. Great American Reserve Insurance Co., 342 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 421 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App.1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Blew v. Conner
green
1 sentence1965Blew v. Conner, Mo.App., 310 S.W.2d 294, 303 , Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 626 ; 16 Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice 629 ; 29A Am.Jur., Insurance, 289 ; 45 C.J.S. | 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.